1951-05-08

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Julia Starr Melnick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of William Alfred Jameson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Jean Camille Antoine Coutu.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Mary Jenner Watkins.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Geraldine Mae Cuffe Kennedy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Lucille Ida Fenlon Ashmore.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Ela Raizman. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Julia Saad Shagory.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Lottie Aileen Wright Robinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Arthur David Prosser.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Edmund Vaughan Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Marie Madeleine Clemence McKenzie Caron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Meinerth Aage Arsvold Wick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Myrtle Louise Vassell Evans.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Margo Clare McManus McKeown.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Eli Wilson Jewer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Beulah Nellie Elliott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Terez Baranyai Jekkel, otherwise known as Therese Baranyai Jekkel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Andrew Krilyk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Harold Dimond Parsons.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Peter Seniw.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Dorothy Agnes Bell Bissonnette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Gertrude Banner Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Selma Schenker Wyler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Frances Helen Shulman Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Agnes Mary Binnie Bullock.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Marie Rose Berthe Bernard Greco.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Paul Emile Le Blanc.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Taras Pieluch. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Joyce Margaret Wright Roxburgh.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Elsie Mary Harrop Cameron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Anna Kirk Rosborough Finlayson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Marie Madeleine Pauline Parent Bjarnason.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Mona Patricia Kiddie Heaney.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. Is the Brazilian market for salt codfish to be reopened?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member was good enough to give notice of his question. In reply I would point out that the reopening of the Brazilian market to Canadian codfish is of course a question for the Brazilian government itself. However, negotiations have been going on since November, 1949, between the Brazilian government and the Canadian government for the opening up of this market, and will continue.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production or his parliamentary assistant, arising out of press reports in my riding. Has the federal government requested the provincial governments to curtail necessary school building in the interests of the national defence program?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to
the question is no. To explain the position further, there is no prohibition against obtaining steel or any other material for the construction of schools. Obviously, however, the federal government cannot become responsible for the allocation of steel for the construction of schools. Usually steel can be obtained for that purpose.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Gray  don@Peel: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I have not informed him of my intention to ask this question; therefore he may wish to take it as notice. Just a year ago today, as a result of a violent windstorm, panes of glass in the dome of the library of parliament were broken. Later they were replaced by boards or plywood and they have remained that way ever since. The lighting and the appearance of the library are affected by the lack of window glass. Would the minister consider the desirability of repairing the damage by the replacement of the panes, so that the lighting and the appearance would be restored to normal?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I certainly will take into
consideration the request made by the hon. member.



LIGHTING ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE EAST BLOCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works concerning the lighting on the east side of the east block. I find that while there are twenty-seven light fixtures, there are only three lamps in them that show light.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall be pleased to look
into the matter, but I thought the hon. member did not need so much light.



INTERPROVINCIAL BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works, based upon a question I


asked on May 2 in connection with the responsibility for the construction of a bridge between CampbeBton, New Brunswick, and Cross Point, Quebec. The minister said he would consult the Minister of Justice. Has he done so and, if so, what has been the result?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish
to appear discourteous by giving a short answer, but the way the question is put is this: "Has the minister consulted the Department of Justice?" The answer is no. The second part of the question is: "Is he prepared to let us know the results?" I have not any results.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the minister consult the
Department of Justice and then give us an answer?


Alphonse Fournier: With pleasure.



GOOSE BAY AIRPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Francis Higgins: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was the recent death of a Canadian civilian at Goose Bay airport caused by his being fired at by a United States sentry?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I have not the file on this case, as the intimation that the hon. gentleman was to ask the question reached me only a few minutes before I came into the house. My recollection of the events is that on April 27, at about eleven p.m., two civilian employees of a contractor were driving in a jeep and had an altercation with some United States army men at one of the mess halls occupied by them. In the course of driving the jeep, the civilians were alleged to have driven to the danger of a United States policeman, who shot at the jeep with his revolver with, as he said, the intention of stopping but not hitting the men. They drove on at a high rate of speed and he pursued them. In the course of the pursuit the civilian jeep was overturned and the passenger killed, although the driver was not injured. Neither was hit by the revolver fire of the United States policeman.
The accident was at once investigated oh the spot by Canadian and United States officials, including the R.C.M.P. acting for the Newfoundland provincial government. A charge of drunken driving was laid against the civilian driver. We sent from headquarters an R.C.A.F. officer from the judge

advocate general's branch to make an investigation. The matter is now pending before the courts. So far as can be seen, it is largely a matter which should be handled by the authorities of the government of Newfoundland.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. There is some concern among the veterans of the Korean campaign who have returned to Canada with respect to the absence of a clothing allowance and unemployment insurance upon discharge. It seems that a number of Korean veterans, who are mostly wounded personnel declared unfit for further military duty, have paraded at the Pacific coast in protest against what they consider to be unfair treatment. Would the minister care to make a statement at this time?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond for bringing this matter to my attention. The officers of the department investigated the news item to which the hon. member refers, and found that no such parade was organized in Vancouver. With regard to the complaint that no provision for unemployment insurance benefits has been made for veterans discharged from the Korean forces, may I say that that is not according to the facts. By virtue of the authority granted under the special forces act passed last session, an order in council was passed on November 8 which gave unemployment insurance benefits to all veterans who have served for three months. Any veteran of the Canadian Army special force in Korea must have served a minimum of three months.
With regard to the clothing allowance, the hon. member will recall that at the end of the last war this was paid by the Department of National Defence and was included with the last pay cheque given to the man on discharge. This is one of the questions under study by the interdepartmental committee which is now looking into the question of veterans benefits.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Will the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys be
Supply-National Defence kind enough to check the answer given on May 7 to a question I had asked as to what was the total paid by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for professional and special services in the fiscal year 1950-51? The answer given is $2,742.15. I would point out that the second part of my question asked for certain particulars with regard to payments over a certain amount, and that is answered in the negative. According to the table provided by the Minister of Finance with this year's estimates, this department is shown to have spent $1,533,392 under that heading, and I was inquiring as to the particulars of payments over a certain amount. The answer that they spent only $2,742.15 certainly does not coincide with the table provided by the Minister of Finance.


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: So far as I know, the answer is correct. However, I will have another look at it.


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Defence forces-
245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which $183,050,000 will be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.
Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of the session a number of statements have been made on matters relating to defence, and for the convenience of hon. members I should like to give references to them. The statements were announced by me except in the cases noted. They were made on February 5, as reported at page 90 of Hansard, on the defence program; there was a statement by the Minister of Defence Production on February 8, at page 179 of Hansard; another statement by myself on February 21, 1951, at page 563 of Hansard, on the brigade group joining the Princess Patricias; a statement by the Prime Minister on March 9, 1951, at page 1077 of Hansard, on the Defence Production Act; by myself

Supply-National Defence on March 21, 1951, at page 1485 of Hansard, on the air training plan; by myself on April 19, 1951, at page 2173 of Hansard, on the bombing and gunnery range; by myself on April 24, 1951, at page 2317 of Hansard, on the recruiting of women; by the Prime Minister on May 1, 1951, at page 2549 of Hansard, on the arrangements in connection with the Newfoundland bases; by me on May 1, 1951, at page 2553 of Hansard, on the formation of the commonwealth division; by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on May 1, 1951, at page 2554 of Hansard, on the extension of benefits to veterans; on May 4, 1951, at page 2703 of Hansard, on the formation of the 27th Canadian infantry brigade.
In addition, yesterday we tabled the white paper, "Canada's Defence Program," incorporating a good deal of this material and giving other information about defence in very considerable detail. Consequently I do not feel that it is necessary or desirable for me to make a very comprehensive and detailed statement at this time. However, there are some matters of great importance about which I feel hon. members would wish me to say something at the outset, and also some matters which have come up since the white paper was prepared.
The object of all defence policy, Mr. Chairman, is to preserve the security of our country. It is better to prevent a war than to have to fight a war to victory. Our primary responsibility is the defence of our country against direct attack. All Canadians realize, I believe, that the best place to defend Canada is as far away from our shores as possible; but they also recognize that we cannot do it alone, that we must have allies with whom we plan and work, and, if need be, fight in close co-operation shoulder to shoulder; that the only possible aggressor would be imperialist communism working under one guise or another; that the object of our defence activities is to prevent war by providing the force to deter aggression or, if necessary, to stop aggression should it occur; that our defence activities do not constitute an end in themselves but a means toward providing the strength which will prevent aggression and prevent war so that the human and material resources of our nation, and of all other nations, can be used to extend the areas of human freedom and increase the level of family and individual prosperity and happiness.
So far as we can, during this period we must continue to strengthen the democracy which is the object as well as one of the main bulwarks of our defence. We must also continue to do everything we can to improve the level of our society, raise the standard of
[Mr. Claxton.1
living and enlarge freedom and opportunity throughout our country. We must not lose either our democratic methods or our democratic objectives without fighting a battle. In this the record of Canada and of other countries has shown that we can do a good job, and that victory will be ours with peace, or, if it should come, with war; but the greater victory will be without war.
Developments in international affairs, particularly over the last two years, have reinforced the concept that in the defence of Canada we must work with other countries. In this connection I should like to refer to the developments in Korea, our part in the operations there, and to the organization established under the North Atlantic treaty.
On June 25, 1950, the North Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel. The following day, on the initiative of the United States government, the security council of the United Nations adopted a declaration condemning this as an act of unprovoked aggression and calling on members of the United Nations to suppress this aggressive action by sea and air action. From its forces in the Far East the United States put into action several naval vessels and a squadron of the air force two days later.
It became apparent that the aggressors would not be stopped by sea and air forces alone, and on July 2 the United States put in ground forces. On July 7 the security council recommended that other nations make military forces and other assistance available to the unified command under the United States, and requested the United States to designate the commander. General MacArthur was designated as commander. Other nations having forces in the Far East were the United Kingdom and Australia. On July 26, 1950, the United Kingdom made available one brigade, while Australia sent a regiment from Japan, later reinforced with other troops. Other nations which have taken part are Belgium, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Turkey, Thailand and Colombia.
We sent three destroyers on July 5, made available a heavy air transport squadron on July 19, and the same day arranged for additional air transport through Canadian Pacific Air Lines. On July 20 we announced a greatly expanded defence program. On August 7 we announced the formation, and two days later began the recruiting of a special force which, with elements of the regular forces, was to be made available to the unified command. Recruiting was speeded and training pressed on so that the 25th Canadian infantry brigade

Group had completed basic and advanced individual training and special unit training by the time it arrived at Fort Lewis in the state of Washington between November 16 and November 23. It made a fine impression on its first parade which I was privileged to witness.
At this stage the manner of employing our brigade group was entirely dependent on the development of events. On November 4, 1950, it had been announced that the Princess Patricias would proceed to Korea, and they left on November 25. The rest of the brigade group continued to complete its training at Fort Lewis. On March 28 an advance party of the brigade proceeded to Korea, and Brigadier Rockingham, its commander, also went out to see conditions in Korea, and to make arrangements for the arrival of the brigade.
Returning to events in Korea, by August 1, 1950, the North Korean forces had succeeded in driving back the United Nations forces to a limited beachhead in the Pusan area. During the next six weeks the United Nations forces achieved a build-up which enabled them on September 15, 1950, to launch a counteroffensive. This offensive resulted in the virtual destruction of the North Korean army, and by October 28, 1950, the United Nations forces had driven to within forty miles of the Manchurian border. On November 30 the Chinese communist forces intervened and the United Nations advance was halted. The enemy's offensive operations had by January 1, 1951, forced the withdrawal of the United Nations forces to the vicinity of the 37th parallel. Then the communist attack lost its momentum due to extended lines of communication, inadequate air support, large casualties, particularly those due to sickness, and their inability to cope with cold weather conditions, as well as the increased fighting strength of the United Nations.
On January 25, 1951, the United Nations forces resumed the offensive and advanced steadily through February and March until by April 21, 1951, they had reached a general line immediately north of the 38th parallel. Meanwhile the enemy had succeeded in concentrating a mass of manpower and material in the immediate battle area. On April 22 the present enemy counter-offensive was launched with an estimated 350,000 men representing about half the total enemy forces in Korea. At present the United Nations forces in western Korea are occupying defensive positions along a general line approximately five miles north of Seoul, and at the moment the position has been stabilized. Total United
Supply-National Defence Nations forces in Korea, apart from the South Koreans, are estimated to be approximately
260,000.	We have 6,100 in the brigade group and 1,100 reinforcements in Korea in addition to those in Canada. Altogether we have trained reinforcements estimated to be sufficient for six months, with more being added day by day from current recruiting.
Turning to the question of casualties, estimates of enemy casualties are apt to be very far off the mark and usually exaggerated. One estimate is that over 800,000 casualties have been inflicted on the combined forces of the Chinese communists and North Koreans. During the same period United States casualties are reported to be 62,000, including 10,400 killed, 40,600 wounded and 11,000 missing. We have not the figures of the casualties suffered by the other United Nations forces. Our own Princess Patricias entered into action on February 22. Up to May 3 they had suffered 33 killed and 85 wounded. We mourn their loss, just as we deplore and regret that it should be necessary. All three services, navy, army and air force, are now making a substantial contribution to defeat aggression in North Korea. There I believe the magnitude of our effort is third among the United Nations co-operating in this work.
In the navy, army and air force we have a total of 8,337 officers and men involved in our operations in the Far East. This is in addition to men in the replacement group, supply lines, training establishments, and others. Of these 2,567 are in the active forces, and there are 5,770 who joined the Canadian Army special force.
The chief of the naval staff has handed me a letter he received from the officer commanding the forces with which our ships are serving in the Far East, which I think the house might be interested in hearing. It is dated March 29, 1951, and reads:
Dear Grant:
Now that HMCS Cayuga has left us, I wish to take the opportunity of her departure to tell you how extremely well the Canadian ships have done out here.
I sent you a copy of a letter I wrote to Taylor of the Sioux, and I find it hard to choose between any of the three we know so well, Sioux, Athabascan or Cayuga. The new arrivals, Nootka and Huron, will, I know, soon get worked in and play as big a part as their predecessors-they can't do more.
I should interpolate that since this letter was written the Sioux has arrived to replace the Athabaskan.
As for Brock-

Supply-National Defence
That is Captain Brock.
-he has handled his own ship and all your three ships (and for that matter any others that from time to time have been under him) very well. He has shown courage and common sense. His well-judged night entry into Chinnampo in early December was a fine bit of work.
I feel that he deserves my praise, and so do all the ships that you have sent us. They have set a high standard, and I am sure you have every reason to be proud of them and satisfied with their work.
This letter is signed by Vice Admiral William Andrewes, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O.
The Princess Patricias have lived up to the splendid record of that fine regiment. I have seen the brigade twice, once when it first arrived at Fort Lewis and then just before they left. The views expressed by His Excellency the Governor General, who took the salute and inspected them that day, and by other distinguished' soldiers with wide experience and great records, confirm my impression that this brigade is one of which we may well be proud-tough, well trained, and well led.
The United States air force officers in command of McChord field, from which 426 squadron is operating its airlift, gave me exactly the same report about the R.C.A.F. I do not suppose it is generally recognized that on a round trip these twelve North Stars, flying west on the great circle route past the Aleutians, east by way of Honolulu, in order to take advantage of the weather and also to provide more comfortable service for the wounded they frequently carry back, travelling through most difficult weather and over some of the longest legs in the world, fly over 13,000 miles on each trip.
This is a fight, Mr. Speaker, in which international police action is working to stop communist aggression, communist gangsters. The forces of the United Nations for the first time are working and fighting shoulder to shoulder to stop aggression in Korea, and to show that aggression does not pay there or anywhere else. It is a magnificent thing that young Canadians should have volunteered to serve in such a cause. In taking the action we have, in co-operating in this way, I believe the great bulk of the Canadian people feel that we have done right. I believe they also feel that the government, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have been right in doing everything possible to reduce the risks of a general war. The object of the effort in which we are participating is to show that aggression does not pay, to restore peaceful conditions in Korea and, by preventing aggression there, to preserve peace everywhere.
In this connection I should like to make it just as plain as I can that I profoundly disagree with the views expressed' on this subject in the house last evening by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I am glad to say that they are not the views of this government. Moreover I do not believe any government holding those views would continue to have the support of the Canadian people. Certainly they do not express the objectives for which we are asking our young Canadians to serve gallantly a great cause far from home. Moreover, I believe-and I think all fifteen governments participating in the Far East have the same view-that were the views expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to be adopted they would increase the risks of a general war, without increasing the opportunity for bringing about a successful termination of hostilities in Korea upon terms which would be acceptable to those nations.


Mr. Green:: You had better read it again.


Brooke Claxton: It would be interesting to learn whether the views expressed by this senior member of the Conservative opposition correctly express the views of that party or of any other considerable number of the members in this house.
Now, sir, may I turn to the North Atlantic treaty organization. References have been made before to our substantial contributions of equipment to the North Atlantic treaty nations. It is not expected we shall be making further deliveries of existing equipment until deliveries of substantial quantities of replacement equipment are forthcoming from the United States, or being produced here. We are also getting on with the training of aircrew for the countries participating. The first wings parade of navigators took place at Summerside last Friday, and it was a thrilling sight to see the young men coming up to take their wings behind the colours of the countries for which they are working, and the countries which are also working with us. In this case it was Belgium, Italy and Norway. Next week it will be France, and so on with all the countries that are taking advantage of our air training plan. It was a thrill for Canadians to see these men, called to receive the R.C.A.F. wing, proud because of the high standard of achievement our airmen have won for the wings of the R.C.A.F. in every corner of the world.
Reference has been made to the reopening of the airfields, and the acquisition of aircraft to look after this flow which we expect will build up to a total of about 3,300 R.C.A.F.

and NATO student fliers this year. A good many hon. members saw the F-86E fly at Toronto two weeks ago last Friday. This is the first Sabre to be equipped with our Canadian designed and made Orenda engine, with power perhaps greater than any jet engine being made. This increased the performance of the aircraft even over that which had previously made it the fastest fighter yet known. That afternoon this plane had completed a flight from Minneapolis to Toronto, a distance of 715 miles, in one hour and five minutes, or about 700 miles per hour, and that must be a record of some kind.
Yesterday we began to raise the 27th infantry brigade on the basis of the reserve force units. The reserve army units designated have taken hold of the job in a most creditable fashion. In Winnipeg yesterday I visited one of the depots and found that the procedure was working well. Shortly after ten o'clock the first recruit was completely examined, documented and in uniform. The reports which were received by defence headquarters this morning, which are still incomplete, indicate that a total of approximately 1,200 applications were received yesterday. This is regarded as a good response on the first day. It indicates that with the strong support of the reserve forces, and of the people of Canada, we should raise a force of considerable size which will be useful in meeting the responsibility ahead of us.
Many of the reserve units which have not been designated, while expressing proper and creditable regret, offered their hearty support in canvassing their men to join up during the plan. As seems to be almost inevitable in an operation of this kind, there were reports in the press which were entirely without foundation. One was to the effect that we were going light on Ottawa so as to keep the civil servants in their positions. There is absolutely no foundation whatever for that statement. Moreover, it was not made by any responsible officer at national defence headquarters. Then, there was another report, heard over the regional news in Ontario this morning, that while recruiting was going well in Montreal the response was largely from French-speaking applicants. This is the reverse of the usual suggestion, and on that account perhaps we should welcome it. But I venture to say that when the figures are checked it will be found that the English-speaking people of Montreal have responded to this as to every other appeal as well or better than their Englishspeaking friends in other parts of Canada.
Personally I deprecate beyond words these efforts to put one race against another in this or any other country. For this reason
Supply-National Defence among others we have not kept figures showing the racial origins of Canadians joining the armed forces. We regard them ail as Canadians. When questions of that type are asked or assertions made, they are not made for the purpose of maintaining national unity but for the very opposite.
However, in this connection I am going to break my own rule, a rule which has been observed by my predecessors and welcomed by the house. I do that because of two charges against French-speaking Canadians which are utterly and completely without foundation. I do that because they have been made in important publications in other countries. I refer first to an article on Canada's foreign policy in the Contemporary Review of February, 1951, published in England, by J. A. Stevenson, who said:
. . the comparatively small contingent of French Canadians, who have volunteered for the special UN force, indicates that the isolationist spirit still has a firm grip on the French-Canadian people.
In a similar article in Foreign Affairs published in the United States for April, 1951, the same author said:
The recruiting returns for the special United Nations forces showed a smaller proportion of volunteers from Quebec than from any other province.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in the interests of unity and justice, it is necessary to deny emphatically these unfortunate and inaccurate statements. It happens that we do keep figures of enlistments by districts and areas which generally correspond to the provincial boundaries. The total number of men enlisting in the special force was 10,587. Of those, 3,134 came from the province of Quebec, or thirty per cent. The inhabitants of the province of Quebec represent twenty-nine per cent of the population. In other words, far from the province of Quebec doing worse than the rest of the country, it did just about the same as the rest of the country, or a little better.
Moreover, I have had a special survey carried out. It meant looking at every file, but I thought in the interests of national unity and justice we should do it. It was found that the proportion of Canadians in all parts of the country who joined the special force and whose mother tongue was reported to be French corresponds almost exactly to the Canadians of French origin in the total population. I must say that when I was out there I saw the 22nd, the Princess Patricias and the Royal Canadian Regiment working as a single team. They had the utmost confidence in each other, as well they may have. They got on well. I believe that, just as in Italy and in western Europe, the forces of the two main streams of our culture and

Supply-National Defence of our country will be united in battle as in peace, more than ever before in the history of our country.
Now I should like to make it plain how the sixteen battalions were selected to form part of this brigade. There are over sixty infantry regiments in Canada. When we wanted to raise three battalions to constitute the 27th infantry brigade, plus some more to act as replacements or to rotate later, we were faced with the task either of choosing three battalions within the more than sixty or of dividing up the job and choosing, say, six or fifteen or some other number. We arrived at the fifteen in order to give a broad basis of geographical distribution and representation through all parts of the country.
Five companies are required for each battalion, and we wanted to have each of those five companies have something in common on which they would begin to build on the traditions of their particular type of unit; so we designated one battalion as a Canadian highland battalion, and to make up that battalion we asked five reserve Scottish regiments, from different parts of the country, each to send a company first and then another one later. Then we asked five rifle regiments and five line regiments to do the same thing. In this way it seemed to us that we were arriving at the double purpose of gaining the greatest possible support through tying in with the greatest number of units, and yet making the most of existing tradition, and thus form a battalion out of which a good commanding officer could fairly soon make a fine unit.
This plan was put up to the general officers commanding districts and then to the representatives of the defence associations representing the fourteen corps of reserve army units of non-regular soldiers. No objection was made to it. The G.O.C.'s, knowing the units in the districts, felt that this was the best way to do it. The reserve army representatives felt that this was a good thing to do, and they had no comment to make on the selection that had been made. I may say that it was made by the chief of the general staff and by the officers advising him; but it was discussed in detail by myself and approved by myself.
In selecting localities we had also to consider not only geographical distribution, not only the division into Scottish, line and infantry regiments but also the other types of regiments and units that we wanted to raise in each locality-artillery, engineers,


army service, intelligence corps, provost corps and so on. If, for instance, London, Ontario, had a good reserve army provost corps-and there are few of them in the reserve forces -it was designated as the place to raise the provost corps; and so on with the artillery and engineers, each contributing a battery or a troop, whatever might be appropriate, to form the unit. In the case of the armour- because this force is to be equipped with the latest type of tanks on which only, so far, officers and men of the permanent force have been fully trained-we decided to send the R.C.D.'s to supply replacements for a number of armoured regiments. The way in which it has been received seems to indicate that this plan, announced on Friday, put into effect over the week end and begun yesterday will do the job we set out to do provided it has strong and sustained support.
Further, it is the kind of thing that the reserve forces are designed to do. It is no part of the role of the reserve forces to have forces in being, trained, equipped and ready to fight an equally trained and equipped enemy in instant battle. That is not their job and never has been; and it is a total misconception to consider it as their job.
I must say that the way in which the reserve forces have responded to this appeal reflects the utmost credit on them and on their ability to do a job, and indicates that, just as they did such superb work in raising the nucleus of our forces in the first great war of 1914-18 and in the second world war, they are ready now and will be ready in the future to do the tasks for which they are chosen.
I hope we shall have the strong support not only of the members of the House of Commons but also of the press and of citizens everywhere. This story about keeping the civil servants free from exposure to the dangers of enlistment cannot be calculated to help recruiting or to strengthen the effort to build up Canada's defence forces. I have no doubt that the reporter who obtained the story got it from somebody; but no effort was made to check it with my office, with the chief of the general staff, with the director of public relations, or with the adjutant general; and they are, I think, the only officers qualified to speak authoritatively on a matter of this kind.
The fact that these other reserve army units have not been chosen at this stage does not indicate that they will not have their chance. Our hope is that as this plan develops, each of the reserve force units will make a similar contribution, so that in a

period of two or three years all the reserve force units may have experienced and trained officers and men, who have had recent experience abroad, available to the extent of a company or its equivalent, so that in that way, together with the veterans and the other trained soldiers available, it will greatly shorten the time within which our reserve force will be able to mobilize the force we shall need.
In this plan our intention is to have married men who serve for twelve months overseas and single men who serve for twenty-four months overseas entitled to receive their discharge, although the terms of their military enlistment may not have elapsed. But that of course will depend on the military situation, and we cannot foresee that.
To turn to the question of manpower, while the figures for April are not yet available, estimates show an intake for that month of 2,452 and an outgo of 518, making a net increase of 1,934, which maintains the very good record we have been having, bringing the strength of the three active forces to the figure of 70,361. At this rate, or at anything like it, taken together with the added impetus which we believe will be given by raising the 27th Canadian infantry brigade, it should be possible to see the target for our armed forces and full-time civilian employees of something like 150,000 at March 31, 1954, is likely to be achieved in one-half that time. This target is something which we set down for planning purposes. But we aim to go ahead with our plans and with our programs as fast as the money voted by parliament will permit.
We have had a large number of inquiries from women wishing to join the regular air force or the reserve forces of the three services, in accordance with the announcement I made. As I said then, recruiting for these will not start until the summer, when there will be public announcements. It was not my intention to make this announcement until later. However, a leak occurred, though not through military sources. The article in the R.C.A.F. publication The Roundel, which was said to be the basis for the story referring to W.D.'s in the logistic organization of the armed forces, was actually written more than two years ago, more than two years before the cabinet authorized the recruitment of women. Recruiting will be begun this summer.
We shall have a limited number of places for officers. We mean to have as little overhead as possible, no special establishment and few officers outside of those engaged directly in planning at headquarters, either here or
Supply-National Defence in commands. Women are to be recruited to do particularly work now being done by men, but which can be done as well or better by women, such as radar planning and plotting, radio-teletype communications, clerical duties and the like. Women who believe they have officer qualifications may write to defence headquarters now describing their qualifications either in the services or in civilian life. Their applications will be received and we can process them. Writing in now will not give them a favoured place over those who do not write, or over those whom we may select later.
The white paper and statements made by the Minister of Defence Production deal with
the subject of equipment and I have very little to add at this time. However, I have some new figures which the house has not heard yet, and which may be interesting. Defence orders placed during the year 194950 may be compared with those placed in 1950-51 in the following table, which involves totals of more than $25 million:
Aircraft	 $88,517,449
Ships	 4,188,196
Tank-automotive	 12,383,629
Weapons, ammunition and
explosives	 3,084,334
Electronics and communication equipment	 16,779,462
Clothing and equipage	 16,710,614
Building construction, maintenance, supplies and equipment	 41,851,524

Other items bring the total for the two years to $244,709,352 for 1949-50 and $800,816,068 for 1950-51.
In the field of construction, during the period September 30, 1950, to April 30, 1951, there were thirty contracts awarded for construction projects involving amounts of over $500,000 each. During the last six months the Department of Defence Production and Defence Construction Limited have let contracts totalling $520,266,137. During the first six months of the second world war the corresponding figure was $136,120,288.
The appropriation sought for the current fiscal year 1951-52 of $1,600 million, or the amount available for defence purposes from all sources, $1,879 million, may be compared with the expenditures on defence amounting to $195,999,201 in 1947-48; $268,804,813 in 1948-49; $384,879,008 in 1949-50; and $587 million for 1950-51.
At this time last year the appropriation sought was $425 million. The present figure is a little more than four times as much. The appropriation for last year of $425 million was increased by a supplementary vote of $145,200,000 passed at the special session in August, bringing the total up to $567,200,000.

Supply-National Defence To this there should be added a final supplementary adopted in March of $21,575,166, making a total appropriation for 1951 of $588,775,366. Out of this we estimate that we shall spend $587 million, or $1,700,000 less than appropriated.
The table appearing in the white paper at page 29 shows that the figure of $1,879 million is 47'5 per cent of the national budget, 11-67 per cent of the estimated national income for 1951-52, 9-4 per cent of the gross national product for the same year and $134.27 per capita.
This year the official estimates of the federal government amount to $3,586,915,657. Of this a total of no less than $1,365 million are payments fixed by parliament for debt services, subsidies to the provinces, social security payments, or covered by post office revenues and miscellaneous refunds and consequently not subject to government control. The amount of federal government expenditure within the control of the government for all operations of government, apart from defence, is therefore $516,600,000.
In the white paper there are charts showing the distribution of the defence program, measured in dollars and in percentages as between the navy, army and air force, and also between the main objects of expenditure. The percentage of the defence program allotted to the air force shows a steady increase from 25-6 per cent in 1946-47 to 47-8 per cent in the present program. This change in emphasis follows the change in policy adopted by most of our allies; but we by all odds are spending the greatest proportion on air defence of any country in the world. The reasons for that are obvious. We have great facilities for aircraft production and air training. Our record in the air is very definitely a fine one. We have shown that we have the skills not only to fly but to administer, and to train aircrew and groundcrew. We have the skills to keep aircraft flying in the air, and the skills required to make them. And in these respects, with the production of the F-86E, which is moving on well, and production of the CF-100 Canuck, as well as the Orenda engine, and the Beaver, as well as a reconversion program of over 200 aircraft still to be completed, we shall be spending very large sums indeed on the air force for the next three years. During that time we shall acquire or produce a total of no less than 3,300 aircraft.
As I have indicated, this is a three year program. I have seen some criticism on the score that this term is too long, that it should be completed more rapidly. For that matter, one week may be too long. We have no means of telling. But if today we had

all the forces we would like to have at this time we would not be spending $1,879 million on building them up. The same is true of any other country. It is necessary to plan for a period longer than a single year so as to provide for a build-up of personnel, equipment and accommodation that is steady, in balance, co-ordinated and consequently as efficient as possible. This period of three years is being used by a number of the North Atlantic treaty nations. It is the period used in the program of the United Kingdom.
But that is the target. As I have said, we will press on just as fast as we can to do the job, given the resources made available by parliament. As I have said also, it may be estimated that with anything like the current rate of recruitment we will reach the objective as at present planned of having something over 150,000 service personnel and civilians in the armed forces in a year and a half rather than in three years.
May I summarize once again what this program is intended, and what I believe it will enable us, to do. First, to provide for the defence of Canada against direct attack and the protection of our coast and shipping lanes. Second, maintain and reinforce the 25th Canadian infantry brigade in Korea, as well as naval vessels and air force, as long as they are needed in that theatre. Third, build up a brigade group and eleven squadrons for the integrated force in Europe. Fourth, provide for replacements and rotation. Fifth, provide suitable equipment, ships, tanks, aircraft of the latest types for our forces.
It provides also for the build-up of mobilization stores and equipment and a considerable part of the accommodation that might be needed by the forces we would expect to employ in the first year of general war, should there be one. I am sure that that program has the support of every hon. member of the house.
It is possible for us to carry out this substantial program and still balance the budget by reason of the buoyant condition of our economy today. This was made clear by the very comprehensive budget report on the situation presented in this house by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee that we and the armed forces appreciate what it has meant to my colleagues and their departments to make substantial cuts in what in normal times would be a reasonable level of activity for them, in order to make possible a greater national defence effort without upsetting the economy.
This places an even further responsibility on the minister and the Department of

National Defence to observe the utmost in economy. Despite further substantial increases in the size of the armed forces, we plan to have very little increase in the administrative personnel. While we will maintain every effort to effect every possible economy, I should like to say in fairness to our armed forces that our overhead is, I believe, proportionately less than in other comparable countries.
A quantitative test of the extent to which the navy is operational is the proportion of men at sea. In Canada that proportion is about 40 per cent, which is even higher than it was during the war. Members will observe from an answer tabled in the house last Monday that the 15 ships of the Canadian navy in commission during the year 1950 spent a total of 1,724 days at sea as compared with 1,287 days at sea for the 13 ships in 1949 and 1,186 days at sea for the 10 ships in 1948.
Today we have in numbers, although not in formations of men trained and ready to fit into their places in a division, the equivalent of more than a division. If that is taken as the way in which to count the divisional slice, and I suggest that any counting of a divisional slice is a very arbitrary operation and one would have to probe very carefully into any figures given, such as those by the Alsop brothers or any other writers, to make sure of the basis on which they are given, we have a divisional slice which is about half of what we had during the war and considerably less than the reported divisional slice for either the United Kingdom or the United States.
For air forces the test is the number of hours flown per aircraft per month, and in this respect the performance of the R.C.A.F. compares favourably with that of other countries.
This does not mean that we will rest where we are, that this money will be wasted. All the measures of economy that the government, the Department of Finance, the treasury board, the Department of National Defence and the services can bring to bear will be brought to bear and we will see to it that the best possible use is made of this money.
In order that we may have the discussion of these estimates in the order most convenient to members, I would suggest that we follow the practice of recent years. This is entirely a matter for the committee and there is no thought of binding it, but it would be a desirable thing and I am sure one that would meet the views of all quarters of the house if hon. members wishing to make
Supply-National Defence statements about defence generally should do so at the outset. We could then follow with a detailed consideration of the estimates beginning at page 269, taking the main heads in the following order:	administration,
inspection services, civil defence-I would point out that, since the responsibility for civil defence was transferred to the Minister of National Health and Welfare by an order in council dated February 23, this branch of activity falls under that minister and I expect he will be here to make a short statement and to answer any questions-imperial war graves commission, navy, army, air force, defence research, mutual aid, grants, et cetera, pensions.
I repeat that the aim of all this is not war, but peace, peace through the prevention of aggression. With the great efforts being put forth in other countries as well as in Canada, it is our hope, yes, our belief, that we will be able to achieve our objective and preserve peace. With our freedom in the balance, this great effort must be taken and must succeed.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, the method of examining these estimates suggested by the minister will, I feel sure, be acceptable to members on this side of the house. Before passing on to the detailed examination of the estimates, I should like to make a few general remarks on the question of defence. In doing so I cannot help but recall the fact that today is the 8th day of May, and the 8th day of May is generally known as V-E day. It is a strange coincidence that on the anniversary of the day when in northwest Europe the cease fire was sounded there will again be Canadian troops landing on foreign soil with many of their former allies in pursuit of those same high ideals.
It has been my privilege, and perhaps my misfortune, to follow the minister immediately after he has completed his statement on the presentation of his annual estimates for the past five or six years. Over this period of time the world situation has demanded a progressively greater proportion of our national budget to be allocated to national defence. Conscious of the deteriorating international situation, the official opposition has never placed any obstacle in the way of the government in raising the funds which the minister has considered necessary to provide this country with reasonable measures of defence. On the contrary, the opposition has frequently taken a lead in urging more effective defence measures and asking for more adequate forces than were being provided in the minister's forecasts in previous years.

Supply-National Defence
We have felt all too frequently in the past that the government has failed to take a realistic view of the state of our armed forces, and that it also failed to relate the state of those forces in true perspective to the dangers which were facing this and other free nations. I am inclined to think that if more heed had been paid to our warnings the development of our forces would have been further advanced today than it is. I am perfectly conscious that I shall be told that the development of such inventions as modern radar, the F-86E and the CF-100 could not have proceeded any faster than it has. I admit quite freely that two years ago I criticized the then F-86, but the F-86 of two years ago and the F-86E of today are quite different aircraft. The F-86E of today has far more thrust and ability to climb, and greater manoeuvrability than the original F-86 ever had.
Perhaps if we had gone ahead and developed the F-86 two years ago we should not have had the same efficient machine that is now being developed, but there are many other fields of activity in which it would have been safe to have gone ahead. We could have increased the number of men and generally raised the state of our armed forces to a much higher degree of efficiency than they have at the present time if the government had listened more to the warnings of the opposition. If that had been done, as the minister has said this afternoon, it would not have been necessary to allocate such a large sum of money for defence as is to be spent this year, the sum of $1,879 million.
Parliament is asked to provide that sum of money to be expended during the present year. If that amount of money had been spread more evenly over the past three years, shall we say, the inflationary tendencies which are so evident today would have been curbed, and also much of the material which we are now purchasing in competition with a booming civilian market could have been purchased at cheaper prices. Thus by delaying war preparedness until this time the government has tended to increase inflation and thereby has placed an additional burden on the taxpayers by increasing the cost of living. I feel that essential materials could have been purchased two, three or four years ago at much reduced prices to those now being paid.
However, I do not intend to engage in what might be called the not unattractive pastime of "I told you so". The recorded debates of this house bear ample evidence of my claim that the opposition has applied the spur to the minister more frequently than the curb.

It has never been an easy task to follow the minister's carefully prepared statement. We have no indication of what is going to be disclosed before the minister makes his statement. The opposition's difficulties are aggravated by a lack of information, and any suggestions which have been advanced to try to make the task of constructive criticism easier for the opposition have been frowned upon by the minister as is the case whenever it has been suggested that a defence committee would assist in that manner.
Today we are perhaps in a little better position than we have been in previous years because the government's program for defence preparedness was announced early in February. Later statements have amplified the general program, and even the white paper issued last night is in the main an amplification of the previous announcements. The minister's speech today, towards the end, most certainly gave us additional information. A good deal of time, not unnaturally, was spent on a historical review of what has been happening in Korea, although at one period in his remarks I thought that we had perhaps wandered into the public accounts committee as he went into considerable detail of how the money had been spent over the last two or three years.
However, he did not follow up that discussion to its logical conclusion by telling us how much of the appropriations is to be allotted for tanks and other equipment out of this year's program. He contented himself by telling us how much had been spent on those particular articles in years gone by. I hope that when we get into the detailed discussion of the various items the minister will then be able to enlighten us and will give us a break-down in corresponding detail, if that is possible.
Recognizing these limitations upon the opposition, Mr. Chairman, we shall do our best to offer some comments on the government's defence program and the manner in which it is proposed to allot the moneys parliament is now being asked to provide in order to implement that program. Before reviewing the program itself, however, I should like to join with the minister and pay my tribute and the tribute of the opposition members to the gallant men of the Royal Canadian Navy now serving in far eastern waters with the various Canadian destroyers; to the men of the 25th brigade now in Korea; and to the men of 426 transport squadron of the R.C.A.F. It goes without saying that in the past months these men have lived up to the highest traditions of Canadians who in previous wars have fought for the freedom of

this land, and that they will continue to do so in future.
As in previous wars, all parts of Canada are represented. I was pleased to hear the minister refer to the contribution being made by the province of Quebec and our Frenchspeaking Canadians. When I went to Fort Lewis in January I was impressed by the efficiency of the Royal 22nd Regiment, both the second and third battalions, and by French-speaking soldiers serving with other units, who did not come solely from the province of Quebec. I endorse what the minister has said, and add that I believe all sections of this country have responded to the call equally in proportion to the population of the various racial divisions of our country. While at Fort Lewis I was impressed by the similarity of outlook in all units, and by the spirit of true comradeship which existed not only within the units themselves but between the various units of the brigade. There was a common desire to do the job at hand, with little or no unhealthy rivalry as between the various units. Nor would I like this occasion to pass without making reference to the sacrifices being made by our allies whose forces are fighting in Korea under the flag of the United Nations. It was with particular interest that we read a few days ago of the magnificent stand made by the Gloucestershire Regiment. I single out that regiment because for many years the Gloucestershire has been allied with the senior infantry regiment in the Canadian army, the Royal Canadian Regiment. It is of interest to note that once again the Gloucestershire Regiment and the Royal Canadian Regiment will be fighting side by side.
The estimates we are now to consider are designed to implement the program first announced by the minister on February 5 and repeated on several occasions since. The international background which has necessitated these expanded defence measures was explained in the house yesterday. It is a confused and complex situation, which has forced many nations to abandon their traditional foreign policies. There is an indication that for many years we shall have to live in an atmosphere of high tension. There can be no peace with the rulers in the Kremlin, because there is no basis of understanding with men whose superiority complex and sense of omnipotence would mould all the peoples of this planet into their way of thinking. Yet there must be no war, in spite of an understandable desire to cut short this period of tension. Thus we have the paradoxical situation of no peace and no war. To that end the free nations must be strong enough to thwart communist designs for world-wide
Supply-National Defence aggression, and at the same time must exercise sufficient restraint to make the enemy realize that we will not easily be provoked into open warfare.
The blueprint of the government's program to meet this ambiguous situation was announced on February 5, when it received the general support of the opposition. In very brief outline the blueprint, if I may call it such, indicates that there will be 100 ships in the Royal Canadian Navy, with many small craft, either new or refitted or newly armed. As far as the army is concerned there will be the airborne striking force, anti-aircraft artillery and other units for the defence of Canada against direct attack. There will be the part of the army with General Eisenhower's force. The extent of that contribution was announced just a couple of days ago; we are to raise, train and equip the 27th brigade. Part of the Canadian force will still be serving in the Far East, and steps are to be taken to rotate the personnel who are there. In addition we are to maintain administrative staff, training establishments, depots, stores, clothing and equipment to provide for rapid mobilization should a total war effort be required. When we turn to the Royal Canadian Air Force, we are to have forty regular and reserve squadrons with more than 3,000 aircraft in addition to those we now have. There is to be an extension of the radar system, which is to be fully manned. In Europe we are to have an air division of some eleven fighter squadrons, and airfields, men and equipment to train large numbers of aircrew for ourselves and other countries.
That, in brief, is the blueprint of the program. We are told that in order to carry out these commitments the strength of the service is to be increased to about 115,000 fulltime, active service personnel, and the minister repeated that figure today. That, I fear, is an understatement of the manpower requirement. I feel it is a miscalculation which may throw out of gear the whole concept of our plan. I do not believe 115,000 men will be sufficient to meet all those commitments which were announced on February 5 and repeated today.


Brooke Claxton: Later I said it would be over
115,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: The figure previously
announced was 115,000, and I do not feel that this would meet all the commitments that have been indicated. The minister has stressed the accelerated recruitment. In previous discussions during this session I said, and I meant it, that we should endeavour to assist the minister to obtain the men that are required. I believe that many members on

Supply-National Defence all sides of the house have already lent their aid and influence in the recruiting of the personnel required.
During the first three months of this year there has been a steady increase, though I do not think it is a spectacular increase. For the navy, at the end of 1950, there were 10,184, all ranks; by the end of March, according to the figures published in this white paper, there were 11,082. The increase from the end of the year for the army was from 32,456 to 34,986; for the R.C.A.F., from 18,436 to 22,359. From the figures which were given by the minister a few minutes ago it would seem that the same rate of increase was maintained during the month of April, roughly speaking about 2,000 for all three services every month. We must face up to the fact that the early months of any year is the period of time when there is more unemployment in the land. I believe one would be optimistic to believe that for the next three months we shall be able to maintain that same rate of increase. I hope we can, but it may require renewed and more vigorous efforts on the part of the government.
There is a point regarding this recruitment which I believe should be brought to the committee's attention. These men have been recruited, may I say, in the haphazard manner in which Canada has always mobilized her manpower for war. Little, if any, consideration has been given to the needs of industry, agriculture or war industry. Lessons that might have been learned, I fear, have not been heeded. Even when this government at the beginning of this session, prompted by outside sources, set up a manpower advisory council, we find that that council has been submerged in a morass of procrastination. The council was authorized on February 1, and since that date has held but one meeting. Thus we drift along in the same old way, leaving it entirely to chance whether a recruit volunteers for service in the particular section of the armed forces for which he is best suited, if indeed he is better suited for the armed force's than for defence production, industry or agriculture. The decision is left entirely to the recruit who, having very little knowledge of the requirements, must decide between the appeals of the minister for defence and the minister for defence production. The delay in calling a second meeting of this manpower advisory council is, in my opinion, unforgivable.
I hope that the same haste will not be displayed in the recruiting of the 27th brigade that was seen during the period of the recruitment of the Korean force. I am rather suspicious of the figures which were

announced by the minister today, 1,200 applications having been received during the first day of recruiting for the 27th brigade. The result of that hasty recruiting for the Korean force was that over 700 men were discharged as being medically unfit, and others were discharged within a few months for other reasons. There is not the same haste today to recruit the 27th brigade as there was to recruit the 25th brigade. Whether or not there is a need for speed, I do stress the importance of a thorough medical examination before anyone is enlisted into the force. Time will be saved in the long run, and a great deal of expense will be saved the Canadian taxpayers.
The minister stated that the recruiting drive to mobilize the 27th brigade commenced yesterday. The difficulties and petty annoyances that arose in connection with the organization of the 25th brigade or the special Korean force will, I hope, be avoided. On the fourth of May the minister stated that there is only one Canadian army today, and that is a most desirable condition. I hope that ideal will be maintained. We came very close to having a two-army system last fall as a result of the manner in which the special force was raised. Figures have been given concerning the supply of officers for the services. While it may be comforting to know -these figures were given in the white paper -that there is available a pool of some 57,000 veteran officers from world war II, we must not overlook the fact that advancing years will disqualify, if they have not already done so, many of these veteran officers. Young leaders are required. I was rather surprised at the very small quotas which had been allotted to the officers' training establishment in the various universities. According to figures which were given to me in reply to a question I asked a few days ago to all intents and purposes the universities across the country reached the quotas which were allocated to them. This is an indication that the universities and the university students are prepared to do, and are doing, their full share in this respect.


Brooke Claxton: The quotas were virtually adjusted to what the universities could do. We hope they are going to do more.


George Randolph Pearkes: As I say, practically every university fulfilled the quota which had been given to it. I believe that is very commendable, but I am going to ask you to increase those quotas in the future.


Brooke Claxton: We shall ask them to do everything they can.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no obligation upon these university students who go through officer training classes to join one or the other of the services. At the same time, that is a method which has created an available pool of young leaders, and I have sufficient confidence in young Canada to believe a large proportion of them will respond to the call.
In view of the expansion contemplated for the forces, and the officer requirement, I am wondering whether we are getting full value from the two service colleges. I am inclined to think that the four-year course, without the obligation of joining the active forces at the conclusion of those four years, may be a luxury which we can hardly afforded to maintain in the present crisis. It may therefore be necessary at this time to introduce some modification of the terms for admittance to those colleges and the length of the various courses; because the output from those colleges at the present time is almost negligible in relation to the demand.
I have just one other observation to make with regard to state-assisted education. It does not always seem to produce the results that are expected. Many veterans of world war II were given college educations at the conclusion of hostilities, in accordance with the rehabilitation plan. I sincerely hope that the other professions have responded more readily than has the medical profession; because I was greatly surprised to find that only two medical officers with the Korean force were medical men who were not in the active army. I do not think that fact reflects high credit on the medical profession as a whole and I cannot help wondering-and I should like the minister to be able to tell me- what percentage of the technical officers trained under our rehabilitation plan after the last war are now serving in the forces at the present time.
I now turn to another point. I cannot help expressing some regret at the indifferent results which have been achieved in the sphere of standardization of arms among the forces of the north Atlantic powers. That Canada should be in the process of exchanging United Kingdom types for United States types can hardly be called standardization. If we have sent to the United Kingdom equipment for three divisions for Europe, it has not yet been replaced by United States types. I would have hoped that we should have reached a stage by now when European countries and American countries could use far more of the same type of arms and equipment than they are apparently using today. Standardization has hardly begun. I hope that the government will use every effort to 80709-179J
Supply-National Defence further the desirable objective of standardization which is required. There is still uncertainty even as to the type of rifle that the troops are to carry. When that decision is made as to what rifle we in Canada are to have, I hope that we shall at least see the three services carrying the same rifle.
The same uncertainty exists in regard to the light machine gun. Is it still to be the Bren gun? If so, it should be remodelled to conform either with the British .280 or with the United States .300. If we are to keep it, a decision must be reached to remodel the Bren gun along one of those lines; or, if we are going to discard it altogether, then the sooner we know what is to replace it, the better. You cannot go into action with a small unit having many different calibres of ammunition.
Another point on the same matter of arms is this. We note that some 400 3-7" ack-ack guns have been sent to Europe. These are to be replaced by United States 90 millimetre guns.


Brooke Claxton: Excuse me, they have not been sent; they will be sent if arrangements can be made.


George Randolph Pearkes: Oh, they will be sent? The wording I have here is that they have been sent, but apparently that is an error. I hope that no time will be lost between the date when these 3 [DOT] 7's go and the date when the 90 millimetre guns replace them.
To come to the question of armament within the services, in previous years the minister has made much of the unification among the three services. We find that this policy in some respects does not appear to be continuing; in fact, it appears to be discontinued at least in so far as the operation, maintenance and repair of motor transport is concerned because each of the armed services-the navy, the army and the air force-has now reverted to its own methods of maintenance and has assumed the responsibility for the repair of its own. vehicles.
Surely the maintenance of motor vehicles of a similar type should have been coordinated and should remain co-ordinated and uniform if the principle of unification is to hold. Has that principle of unification failed? Or is the desire to work together lacking amongst some of the forces? A coordinated or unified policy, though the various services may at times have to go through a slimming process, is far more likely to produce economical and effective results than is a system under which each of the services is working on its own. I cannot help feeling that the reversal of this policy with respect

Supply-National Defence to the care, maintenance, operation and repair of motor vehicles is detrimental. I have never known an admiral, a general or an air marshal who did not begin by asking for more than his share of anyining. With social security expenditures as they are today, it becomes all the more necessary that the department should place orders only for militr ry stores which are absolutely essential.
I have a few remarks I wish to make with regard to the navy. The role of the navy has, I think, been described in this way: The primary responsibility of the Royal Canadian Navy is that of anti-submarine activities. It is interesting to note that with the outbreak of world war I German submarine attacks struck a serious blow at the Royal Navy by sinking three British cruisers in home waters. This success was followed, both in world war I and in world war II, by submarine attacks on warships, merchant vessels and upon the life line of the nations then at war. Between 1914 and 1918, 4,837 merchant ships were sunk. In world war II 2,775 merchant ships were sunk. During those two wars the submarine came nearer than any other weapon to causing our defeat. Since the cessation of hostilities in world war II great developments have taken place, so far as submarine warfare is concerned. According to the semi-official publication, Jane's Fighting Ships, the Russians have .some 750 modern submarines at the present time. Anti-submarine defence demands closely [DOT]co-ordinated teams to search out and to [DOT]destroy hostile submerged craft. Obviously the inclusion of aircraft in these anti-submarine teams is indicated. It may be assumed That landbased aircraft would be useful within certain specific distances, provided suitable airfields are available on each coast. But for mid-ocean operations it is still I believe the opinion of naval authorities that the air component of these teams can best oe supplied by a carrier.
The experience of the last war indicated that carrier-borne aircraft could keep submarine sinkings down. Fighter aircraft, as well as reconnaissance aircraft, must be included in our anti-submarine teams. For years the minister has been calling attention to the development of our new antisubmarine vessels. I do not know how much longer we are to wait for the commissioning of these vessels. I hope every effort will be made to speed up the construction of these new anti-submarine vessels, so that we may not have to rely solely upon the reconverting of the older types.
Today Canada really has no effective antisubmarine teams. During the past year Magnificent, accompanied by destroyers, *carried out training cruises in anti-submarine
[Mr. Pearkes.i
warfare. If those tests proved anything, they showed the ineffectiveness and vulnerability of the combination. Magnificent is out of date, and the 16 Sea Furies and 20 Firefly aircraft of the skeleton air groups are totally inadequate for the protection of our two oceans.
Nor can Magnificent take on her landing decks modern aircraft of the jet-propelled type used in submarine searches. It will be necessary in a very short time either to remodel Magnificent or to exchange her for another more up-to-date vessel.
I repeat the statement I made a year ago, that if it is considered desirable for an aircraft carrier to be maintained on the Atlantic, with some four naval aviation squadrons, then some protection of a similar nature should be provided for the Pacific, where the ocean spaces are wider and the facilities for land-based aircraft are less, because the coastal airfields on the Pacific coast have not been maintained adequately since the war.
Reference was made a year ago to the division of the Royal Canadian Navy into operational and training groups. To what extent has that policy been developed? I understand that our second cruiser is being recommissioned. When I first suggested this to the minister he advised me that this was not desirable because the cruiser strength of the United Nations was considered more than adequate. What is the reason for this change in policy in less than twelve months? Is the cruiser Uganda, now renamed Quebec, to be used purely as a training ship, like Ontario? I presume that is the reason.
That brings me to the point as to whether or not these cruisers are really the best type of ship to provide the opportunities we require for the training of navy personnel to meet the role envisaged for the Royal Canadian Navy, namely that of anti-submarine warfare. Cruisers are expensive ships to maintain. Official figures indicate that it cost over $10,000 a day to operate and maintain Ontario at sea. Of course it costs nothing like that amount to operate and maintain a destroyer. Consideration should be given to the point of whether we can afford to maintain ships of the Ontario type purely for training purposes when, as I say, it costs over $10,000 a day while they are at sea.
The minister indicated that nearly one hundred ships and many small craft, either new or refitted, will be commissioned during the next three years. This will provide a very considerable force, but I suggest that far more information is required on the subject,

which I hope the minister will be able to give when we are dealing with details. Numbers may be grossly misleading. It is obviously a waste of money, though, to keep obsolete ships in reserve. Of course it would be a waste of the lives of young Canadians to man old outworn ships for another shooting war; but we cannot or should not keep in reserve obsolete ships in our yards.
In reply to an official request I was informed that it costs $133 a day to keep a destroyer in reserve, and $83 to keep a frigate. One can see that these figures quickly mount up. If we are to obtain no value from keeping these ships in reserve, then I suggest it would be much better to send them to the scrap pile and have them broken up for steel.
I should1 like to say this regarding the army. Now is the time to consider providing winter quarters for such troops as will be in training next winter. We cannot afford the luxury of sending troops out of the country, with additional pay, because we do not have winter training quarters. I would ask the minister, when he replies, to tell us how much it is costing the country in additional pay to send the troops to Fort Lewis. I do not know whether the United States asked rental for their buildings, but I suggest we should have information on that point.


Brooke Claxton: I should be glad to give it. They made a very fair arrangement.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have only one or two remarks to make concerning the Royal Canadian Air Force. I should like to sound a warning about the multiplicity of types. I hope we will concentrate on those essential types which will fit in with our particular role. I was not impressed with the marine reconnaissance aircraft being converted from the Lancaster that I saw recently. I question very much whether that would be a suitable type.
I know it will take another year before the full results can be seen from the construction of our new aircraft. We should not delay in getting crews ready so that as soon as these plants go into full production the crews will be ready and available to man the aircraft.
I hope that the minister will give the minister who is responsible for civilian defence an opportunity to make a statement before we go into a detailed consideration of the various items. There might be some general remarks we should like to have. As far as this government considers it necessary to raise troops for the defence of Canada, to repress
Supply-National Defence aggression and for the maintenance of those ideals and principles which all three nations have, they will never find the opposition putting obstacles in the way of any well thought out plan.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, this discussion today on defence estimates follows logically the discussion we had yesterday on external affairs. After all, the necessity for defence arises out of the international situation. I think if the people of Canada understand the international situation they will be glad indeed to do what the hon. member for Nanaimo has just suggested, act in unity to prevent aggression against this country and the overthrow of the institutions of democracy which mankind possesses.
In his introductory remarks this afternoon the minister recognized that defence involves more than military preparedness. As I would have expected him to do, he remarked that if we are going to maintain unity in our country and across the world for the defence of democratic institutions we must embark, on plans to raise the standards of living and to safeguard and even extend the freedoms that we have. With that sentiment I agree thoroughly.
I want also to join with the hon. member for Nanaimo and the minister in paying a brief tribute to our armed forces fighting in Korea, the army in the field, the navy in the adjacent waters and the R.C.A.F. squadron which is participating in that remarkable airlift from North America to Japan. I think Canada can be proud of those men. In expressing pride in their achievements one also would like to express deep sympathy with those who mourn the loss of the young men who have fallen already in Korea.
It was indeed satisfactory that the minister was able to place before the committee evidence that the appeal by the armed forces has met with response from all parts of Canada, that no part has fallen down inproviding its quota of young men for the forces of Canada. I remember the occasion in late September 1944 when I, along with the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Cape Breton South, made up the first civilian party from Canada to visit the cemetery at Dieppe. At that time not all the crosses had been erected, but I remember so well walking down the rows of crosses and noting the names, largely those of the men in whom I was interested, those of the South Saskatchewan Regiment. I noted that these names indicated various religious and racial backgrounds, French, Ukrainian, Jewish, Scandinavian, English, Polish, even German and so on. There they were lying

Supply-National Defence together in the cemetery representing the diverse peoples who are helping to build this Canada of ours.
I am going to ask the minister if anything is being done similar to that which was done in the last war to inform the young men who are fighting in the Korean war as to what they are fighting for. I remember I asked this question last September. It was prompted by the fact that on a previous Sunday evening I had heard a broadcast of a discussion between a Toronto newspaperman and United States reporters in Tokyo. The newspaperman was J. B. McGeachy and he was asking what had been done to inform the young men who were fighting as to what they were fighting for. I remember that the United States correspondents in Tokyo could not answer that question; indeed they did not seem to understand what the question involved.
About a week or ten days ago I was visited by a Canadian lady and gentleman who have a son, a lieutenant, in the United States air forces. That son is back in the United States having suffered injuries in Korea. They had visited him and his comrades, in hospital. They told me that that lad and the young men with him were puzzled as to why they had been in Korea and for what they were fighting in that country. When hon. members get the Ottawa Citizen a little later this evening, if they will turn to the editorial page they will find some questions asked by a Canadian journalist and answers by another Canadian journalist, who is also apparently an editor of Maclean's magazine and recently returned from Korea. The first question was whether our boys overseas Know what they are fighting for and what it is all about. The answer given is that most of the officers know, but almost invariably the men cannot answer the question as to why they are there and what they are fighting for.
Since we were so successful in the last war in informing the young men in the armed forces of Canada and in the allied forces as to what the war was all about, I think steps should be taken again to inform the young men engaged in the struggle in Korea as to why they are there and what they are fighting for. I believe that they are there because an act of aggression was committed by North Korean forces last June. They are fighting to prevent further communist aggression in other places in the future. That is one point the department might keep in mind.
Last autumn and again yesterday I said that in building up our defence forces I think the first step should be, and it may still be

advisable to do it, to make a thorough appraisal of our resources. I noted that the hon. member for Nanaimo in the excellent speech he made a few minutes ago spoke of present recruiting and the necessity of considering the interests of industry and agriculture, both vital to our defence effort. It seems to me that in order to do that efficiently we need to have an appraisal of our manpower resources to a greater extent than is being made by the manpower committee. Further, that appraisal should also involve an appraisal of the industrial possibilities of Canada, of agriculture and of our natural resources because should war come I think that Canada's principal contribution may still be not in the realm, of armed forces but rather, remote as we hope to be although we may not be altogether as remote as the last time from the threat of bombing, that we may be called upon to contribute very heavily to the equipment of such armed forces as there may be and for the production of vast quantities of food and raw materials. Therefore we need to adopt a policy of defence which involves more than merely the provision of armed forces, although that must be a vital part of any defence effort that we make.
In that connection we have to consider the relationship of several fields of defence in which we may be called upon to operate. First there is Canada's own defence, including of course civilian defence against the effects of spasmodic bombing. Then there is our continental defence, our contribution to the defence of the northern part of North America, because perchance this time there may be sporadic raids across the pole, across Siberia, over Alaska, and attempts made indeed to land raiding parties from the air to dislocate our industrial life through the northern reaches of our country. Third, we have of course the obligations we have assumed under the North Atlantic alliance. Lastly, there are our obligations under the United Nations. The obligations that we have thus assumed are very great, very wide. They will demand a great expenditure of effort and of money on the part of Canada.
One of the first things that could have been done, I think, in placing the problem of defence before the house was for the minister, and indeed other members of the government, to have made very comprehensive statements regarding our obligations, and what we are expected to do in the respective fields in which we have made most substantial commitments. You know, from listening to the ministers, and from reading the transcripts of the discussions in the public accounts committee, I think the position of

Canada seems to be that which was stated in yesterday's issue of Time magazine with relation to Washington. Hon. members who have read it will probably remember that the article contained the following:
What could a nation make of a leadership whose top military men discoursed confidently of their forces, not the forces of today, but what they plan to have two years from now?
It seems to me that one of the weaknesses in our discussions of defence is that we are talking about the equipment, men and so on that we expect to have two years from now, and we are not paying sufficient attention as a parliament to what we already have. I say to the minister that I think some opportunity should be given hon. members to understand more precisely what the government is doing. I think there would be much more confidence in the department if hon. members were better informed as to what the department is actually doing. I remember that during the last war we had a war expenditures committee. That committee met in camera quite often. Officials of the department came before the committee, and we were often given quite vital and confidential information regarding equipment, supplies, and new methods of war.
I remember very distinctly that some quite secret and confidential explosives were shown to us long before they were used. Their use was explained and the reason why we had appropriated sums of money in order that the experiments leading up to the production of the explosives might be made. In parliament we have no means of knowing exactly what the government is doing ini many respects. Obviously, there are some questions that hon. members are reluctant to ask on the floor of the house or in a committee of this description, but they are questions which should be answered. As I said, I think that a committee like the war expenditures committee, before which departmental officials could appear, and to which information could be given which in the interests of security could not be given in committee of supply or in a public session of the house, should be set up in order that those members of the house who would be members of the committee would be able to reassure their colleagues in the same confidential manner.
In the second world war I do not remember a single instance during the existence of the war expenditures committee when anything of a secret or confidential nature was divulged improperly. I think it would be well if something of that sort could be done again in the interests of unity in the house, and in order to give the house confidence in
Supply-National Deience ,the defence administration and the country confidence in its parliament. Someone has said that the public accounts committee can make inquiries, but the public accounts committee is limited to the fiscal year ending on the 31st of March, 1950, the last public accounts available.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Fourteen
months ago.


Major James William Coldwell: Fourteen months ago,
precisely. We want to know what has transpired during the fourteen months that have elapsed. When the house adopted Bill No. 133 last year we surrendered a good many of our rights to the government and to the Department of National Defence. The measure gave the cabinet power to decide the number and extent of the armed forces, for example, something which prior to that time always had to be approved by parliament. We gave the minister great powers under that measure. I think the house agreed to the bill rather reluctantly because we believed that there was tremendous urgency to get certain things done, and we were very uncertain as to what was going to happen in the immediate future. But what progress has been made during the past year in obtaining the equipment for which large sums have been appropriated? This afternoon the minister mentioned many millions of dollars of equipment authorized through defence production, but how much of that equipment has been obtained? To what extent has defence production placed orders for that equipment with the industrial groups which can provide it? In February the hon. member for Moose Jaw asked some questions and on February 23 this year a return was brought down. The questions were these:
Since June, 1950, have any defence contracts been placed with (a) Ford Motor Company; (b) General Motors; (c) Chrysler Motor Corporation; (d) Studebaker of Canada?
The answers were:
(a) Yes; (b) yes; (c) yes; (d) no.
Then there was this further question:
If so, what was the dollar value of contracts placed with each company?
The answer was:
(a) $606,229; (b) $939,546; (c) $939,437; (d) nil.
The next question was:
Has any of the equipment been actually turned over to the defence forces?
The answer was yes; but as of that date in February, defence contracts for transportation equipment and so on had been let to the extent of only two and a half million dollars, and apparently the situation is not very much better now. I have a Canadian

Supply-National Defence Press dispatch dated Windsor, April 30, 1951, containing a report of the annual statement of the president of the Ford Motor Company to his shareholders, and I think perhaps I had better read it in case the minister should want to comment on it:
In his annual report to shareholders here today, Rhys M. Sale, president of Ford of Canada, said he wanted to "clear the air" of misleading and conflicting stories about the defence production role of his company by saying that "up to this moment" Ford has not been called upon to participate in the national preparedness program.
After reporting that 800 workers had been laid off because necessary steel parts were not available from the United States, Mr. Sale said it would be wasteful for any part of the Ford plant or any number of its workers to stand idle when Canada needs to strengthen its defensive power.
Mr. Sale announced that a major expansion in manufacturing facilities will get under way at the giant Windsor plant "as soon as circumstances permit." He added the company is not yet ready to announce the nature of the project.
The Ford president said, however, that work on a large central parts depot here, as well as similar depots at Montreal1 and Regina has been held1 up indefinitely because the company has been unable to obtain construction permits from Ottawa Mr. Sale said "almost daily increases in material costs and a further demand for substantial wage increases" may leave the company with no alternative but to raise prices on its products.
Mr. Sale said the company has had an inquiry from the government about producing a special military jeep. If the company got the contract, he remarked, it would not "provide an answer, in any sense, to the possible unemployment problem that may result from material shortages or reduced sales."
To me that statement is very disturbing, first because it indicates a failure to grant the necessary permits-though this does not concern the minister-for the expansion of the industry when- material becomes available; and that in the face of the needs the minister outlined this afternoon. It is disturbing in the second place because it indicates a lack of co-operation between the United States and Canada in the matter of certain parts and supplies; and the third reason it is disturbing, of course, is because of the prospect of unemployment in the industry. It further indicates, of course, that rising prices may once again reduce the value of our defence dollar.
These are matters of the type into which more careful inquiry should be made than is possible in this committee, or during a formal house debate. A special committee of parliament, similar to the committee on war expenditures which we had during the last war and which functioned so well, I think would be useful and would be warranted. Then we are told there is some difficulty due to the hesitation of the United States in placing substantial orders in Canada in order that we may get the necessary United
[Mr. Coldwell.l
-States dollars with which to buy parts in that country. I noticed that early last month the Minister of National Defence made a speech in New York in which he said the Canadian government had placed $159 million in firm orders in the United States for various defence materials, as against only $9 million of firm United States orders placed in Canada; and I believe he also said we expected to place something like $300 million of orders in the United States in the current financial year. Is our production being retarded through lack of co-operation by the United States in the provision of vital parts? If so, I think publicity should be given the matter, and every effort should be made to remedy the situation. I have no doubt that has been done already.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Certainly, though I may not be able to answer it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon.
member read Mr. Sale's speech, in which he said work was being held up because of the failure to grant permits. What permits were those; from our own, government departments?


Major James William Coldwell: I presume they would be from another government department- defence production.


Mr. Hellyer:: If the hon. member would permit me, I understood those permits were for the construction of warehouse facilities for Ford parts in different locations in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: It does not say that. The president said:
-work on a large central parts depot here, as well as similar depots at Montreal and Regina has been held up indefinitely because the company has been unable to obtain construction permits from Ottawa.


Mr. Croll:: But they are not doing war work.


Major James William Coldwell: My interpretation would be that these warehouses or depots would be needed in part for the storage of parts required by the Department of National Defence.


Brooke Claxton: Oh, no; we have our own.


Major James William Coldwell: If Mr. Sale has conveyed a wrong impression, the minister can clear it up in the house. I cannot clear it up because I am not aware of what was in Mr. Sale's mind when he made the statement. The figures I have put on record, however, are not those of Mr. Sale; they are official figures brought down by the government and placed on the records of this house something less than three months ago.


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. member will permit me, I think in fairness to all concerned it should be said that between questions and answers, assertions outside the house and comments inside the house, the situation has become far from clear. Either my colleague the Minister of Defence Production, under whose jurisdiction these matters come, or I should make an effort later on to clear it up. It should not be allowed to remain as it appears in the record now.


Major James William Coldwell: That is one of the indications about which I am complaining; that this house is not well informed on a good many things-


Brooke Claxton: There is very good reason for that here.


Major James William Coldwell: -as to what the government is doing or what the policy is. As a member of this house I am not well informed on such matters because we do not get the information that we require. There is no facility for getting it at the present time. Let us have a committee like the war expenditures committee in which we can get the information, and get matters straightened out.
Another question I am going to ask is this. To what extent do customs duties and red tape interfere with the exchange of supplies and commodities amongst the north Atlantic nations? I understand that there is free entry, on a reciprocal basis, of war equipment and the personal belongings of people who are engaged in active service, but that that does not apply to component parts which are purchased by firms engaged on defence contracts. That may be one of the answers to the minister's complaint that only $9 million worth of orders have been placed in Canada by the United States. It may be that the United States tariff wall makes it difficult for United States manufacturers to buy in Canada. If that is so, we should know something about it when we are discussing agreements like the Geneva agreement and, as we shall be soon, the Torquay agreement. We should know about these matters instead of having to glean them from press reports, which I admit I have been doing in trying to understand what we are doing in relation to war equipment.
What is the state of our equipment? This morning my colleague the hon. member for Moose Jaw who is on the public accounts committee, in reply to a question, was told that on March 31, 1950, we did not possess a single modern tank. He was told that in the public accounts committee this morning. In reply to a subsequent question, I understand he was told we had a few now. In other 80709-180
Supply-National Defence words, it is unlikely that we had a single modern tank to send to Korea last autumn.


Brooke Claxton: We sent self-propelled guns from our own stock that were as good for the purpose as any.


Major James William Coldwell: I am talking about the information that was given in the public accounts committee this morning. I have no doubt that the minister will have a very good reply to what I am saying. What I am complaining about is that this parliament does not know. I am not attacking the minister or his department. I am urging that in the interests of national unity, and our effort in this defence field, this parliament should know what is being done in order that we can assure our constituents that everything is in good shape. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt that some of the questions the members would like to ask would elicit-confidential information. Again I say that is one of the reasons I said, at the very outset of my remarks, we should have a committee of the house to which information could be given that could not perhaps be spread all across the pages of Hansard.
The member for Nanaimo mentioned jeeps. I want to ask the minister if the manufacture of jeeps in this country has been held up because of difficulties with patents. Is that so? If it is so, then efforts should be made to overcome that difficulty. I was a member of the house in May 1940, and I recall that when calamity faced us at Dunkirk the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was the minister of munitions and supply, came before the house and told us we could not proceed with the manufacture of certain vital materials in this country because we could not get the blueprints. We had not control of the patents either, and yet we were all ready to produce the equipment that the allies needed in the worst possible way. Let us see there is no repetition of that. I should like the minister to tell me if that is the situation now, and if so what we are doing about it.
There is the question of standardization. I am not going particularly into this this afternoon because the hon. member for Nanaimo dealt with it. But I have wondered if we are integrating our forces, as we are in Korea, with British formations-apparently that will be the case in western Europe-whether we are wise in adopting United States equipment. I believe that every attempt should be made, as the hon. member suggested a few moments ago, to have standardized equipment amongst all the Atlantic alliance nations. I beiiev* that should be done, but at least we should
2816	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence standardize our equipment with the formations with which our soldiers may have to work in Europe or anywhere else.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the commonwealth division.
Mr. Cold well: Yes, if we are integrated in the commonwealth formation we should have common commonwealth equipment.
The minister also mentioned aircraft. According to the record we apparently spent $30 million in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950, yet I cannot see in the record that any plane was produced. Immediately I say that, I know the difficulty of getting the tools and all the rest of it for new types of planes. But that was in the year 1950. For 1951 we have been told the expenditure was greater than $30 million, how much greater I do not know because we have not the record before us. Is it correct that only two CF-100 planes were produced during that year, one of which was subsequently lost? This afternoon the minister said we would be getting some F-86's. Have we any yet? Have any been turned out on the assembly line? We do not know. The government is responsible to this house, but we members of the house are responsible to our constituents. We are responsible to the people who expect this department to defend them. We are responsible to the people whose taxes will provide the money to purchase that equipment, and there is not one of us who can answer the two questions that I have just asked. The minister may answer them or he may not answer them. It may not be advisable to answer them. Again, that is an answer that could be given to a confidential committee or a committee sitting in camera.
Of course, these questions are asked in the public accounts committee, a public meeting.
I can understand the reluctance to answer these questions, and I am not pressing that such questions should be answered.


Brooke Claxton: Both those questions have already been answered.


Major James William Coldwell: Have they been answered?


Brooke Claxton: The information is quite widely known publicly.


Major James William Coldwell: Then I have not seen it in the record or in the press, so I must have missed something.
The hon. member for Nanaimo touched on che question of co-ordinating the forces of Canada. According to the records of the last war the lack of co-ordination created some difficulties. I suppose in order to bring about


some co-ordination the government recently appointed a chairman of the staff committee, Lieutenant General Foulkes. I do not know what his authority is or what his powers are. Does it mean that, in effect, we now have a supreme commander of our Canadian forces, and that this has not only been done to co-ordinate the forces of Canada but to eliminate the kind of rivalry one is bound to find when you have three organizations under three separate heads more or less independent except that they are answerable to the minister? I believe some mention should be made of the fact that there is considerable duplication of effort in these three services. As far as I know only one service of great importance to the three forces is unified; I refer to the dental service. We have three medical corps, three nursing services- and three hospital services. It seems to me, as it has always seemed, that there is no reason in the world why we could not have one medical, nursing and hospital service in the armed forces of Canada and thus prevent the duplication, and apparent waste of medical personnel that has occurred. I know of course that where you have a hospital in an area under control of one of the forces, members of the other armed forces are admitted to it. But in the interests of economy and efficiency in administration, I think that one over-all medical, nursing and hospital plan would eliminate a good deal of waste and a good deal of duplication in the armed services.
The same thing applies, of course, to many of the supplies. I have even read that there is not a common attestation form for the three forces, and that each force has its own types of stationery, forms and all that kind of thing, when many of them might be common to them all.
Let me say just one other word-I will try to conclude now-and that has to do with the reserve forces. I noted what the minister said some time ago, namely that after all the reserve force must be the foundation of the armed forces of Canada. When we look at the record in the report of the Minister of National Defence for the year ending March 31, 1950, we note this in appendix 3 on page 88. If we look at the reserve force, making a comparison with the years 1937-38 or 1935-36 and coming right down to 1949-50, which is the best year since 1945-46, we find 43,047 in the reserve force in 1949-50. In 1939-40 we had 46,855; in 1938-39 we had 51,418; and in 1937-38 we had 45,631 and so on back to 1925-26 when we had 49,075. In other words, the numbers in the reserve

force at the moment are low in comparison with the number prior to the second world war.
The minister this afternoon perhaps gave a partial explanation of that fact when he said that they had called on the reserve force to provide companies or groups to join some of the famous regiments of Canada. That may in part account for this fact. But at the same time I think that all of us in the House of Commons should endeavour to assist the minister and the department in getting young men in the country to train in the reserve force. I think many hon. members have done so. At the same time I think that the department should consider ways and means of offering to young men more inducements than now exist to join the reserve force. I know a suggestion has been made that any pay they receive in connection with the reserve force should be exempt from income tax. Another suggestion that has been made is that they should be allowed something for transportation when they have to travel to the armouries, that better facilities should be provided for training and so on. I think that anything within reason the department can do to make the reserve force more attractive should be done.
All parties in this chamber want to avoid anything in the nature of compulsion. Therefore, because we believe that we should have recruiting for all our armed forces on a voluntary basis, we should co-operate with the department as closely as we can in order to get the results that are necessary. I think the minister is quite right in stating that in the past the reserve forces have been the basis upon which the active forces, when they were needed, were formed and from which recruits were obtained.
There were several other matters about which I intended to say something, but another opportunity will be provided in the discussion on the estimates. I want to assure the minister that the points I have raised this afternoon have been raised in order that members of the House of Commons, and myself as a member, may be informed more completely of what the situation is in the realm of national defence and of what the department and the government are doing to see that the moneys we are appropriating are well spent.


Brooke Claxton: That is one of the purposes
of the committee of supply.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
8,	1951	2817
Private Bills AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



RUTHENIAN GREEK CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 174, respecting the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Canada-Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East)-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Name changed.
The Deputy Chairman:: This bill has been considered carefully by the committee on miscellaneous private bills, and is now before the committee of the whole.


Mr. Herridge:: Would the hon. member for Edmonton East or the hon. member for Comox-Alberni explain the purpose of the bill?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The purpose of the bill was explained on first reading. Then it went through second reading and was referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills. It is now to be studied clause by clause. Clause 1 is before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the bill was reported back with an amendment. What is the amendment?


Alphonse Fournier: That can be explained when we reach the amended section.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Section 1 was
amended, and also section 5. In both sections the words "Central Canada" were replaced by the word "Manitoba". If hon. members will look at the fourth line of the first section they will see that the words "Central Canada" have been replaced by the word "Manitoba". The same obtains in the tenth line of section 5.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.

Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved:: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider orders 29 to 98 inclusive, being Bills Nos. 103 to 114, 119 to 129, 132 to 146, 149 to 168, 170, 171 and 178 to 187.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
80709-180J

Private Bills-Divorce order. I understand it is proper under standing order 110 for one motion to be made to cover all these bills, so far as referring them to the committee of the whole is concerned, out am I correct in understanding that when we get into committee of the whole it is our right to ask that they be called one at a time?


Mr. Speaker:: I would not like to take upon myself the duties of the chairman of committees. I suggest the question will have to be raised there, in committee. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order; house in committee of the whole on divorce bills. Shall clause 1 of these bills carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I submit it is the right of members of the committee to ask that these bills be called separately, and each bill clause by clause, in keeping with the provisions of standing order 76 and citation 669 in Beauchesne, third edition. I would so request, that they be called one at a time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I agree with the hon. member that it is his right to ask that these bills be considered individually. However, if he has particular objection to one or two of the bills, perhaps we might proceed to consider the others as a group, and then the bills to which he objects could be considered separately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; I wish to ask questions of the sponsor with respect to each of the bills.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In which case we will now call Bill No. 103, an act for the relief of Eileen McDermott McRandall.



EILEEN MCDERMOTT MCRANDALL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 103 for the relief of Eileen McDermott McRandall -Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Clause 1.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee understands my feelings, that if parliament insists that we are going to deal with these divorce bills here, then we should deal with them in a responsible manner. I do not think we should just pass them en masse without getting certain information, and making sure that we are competent in each case to pass the bill. I would ask the hon. member for Lisgar, who is responsible for the bill, if there are any children in this family?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Perhaps I might be permitted to say at this point-and this will probably answer a number of other questions the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might ask-that these bills may be sponsored by any member of the House of Commons. In recent years it has been the practice to send bills to the chairman of the committee for signature.
I have done some research work, although possibly not in any amount comparable with that done by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in an effort to find out the responsibilities of a member sponsoring these bills, and particularly the responsibilities of the chairman of the committee. I found in the fourth edition of Bourinot that divorces were granted as early as 1835, which was long before confederation, and that at the time of confederation parliament was given jurisdiction over divorce. Therefore it has been more or less an accomplished proceeding. Looking at the Votes and Proceedings for May 1, I find, as indicated at page 326, that a long list of divorce bills was presented to the house. These bills have been sent to us from the other house, which recommends that the marriages be dissolved and asks that we give consideration to their adoption. I am sorry I cannot locate the exact words. In view of that, when these bills are sent to my office from the office of the Clerk I sign them without any hesitation. I do not even look at the name on the bill. I take it for granted that the thing has been gone into thoroughly in the other house and that is sufficient for me.
I have satisfied myself that the other house is quite competent in every respect to deal with these things. When they send bills to this house asking for our approval, I am quite satisfied to sign them. I do not think it is my duty to do research work on all these bills and find out particulars such as those asked for by the hon. member in regard to children and dependents. That matter is considered most carefully in every divorce petition.
I do not see why I should be compelled to make statistics which any hon. member can make for himself. He can have his stenographer study the reports which are sent to every member of parliament and make any statistics he wishes. I would be permanently busy making statistics in regard to divorce bills if I were so inclined. Until I have some positive instructions in that regard I do not intend to do anything about it. Consequently I cannot give the hon. member the information he asks for. I have looked into some of these proceedings, but unless I am given other instructions in that

regard I do not intend to make up statistics in regard to the details of these bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Lisgar knows full well that when I speak on this matter I am not speaking against him personally in any way whatsoever. He and I are good friends. But it does seem to me that what he has said just now makes the practice through which we go in this House of Commons even more ridiculous than it seemed before. The hon. member permits his name to appear on the order paper two or three hundred times a year as the sponsor of these bills and he now tells us that he signs his name to these bills as chairman of the committee on miscellaneous private bills without even looking to see what names are involved in the divorces he sponsors.
He may be signing his name some day to a bill which will break up one of the happy families around this house. I suggest that he should be more careful. The hon. member has suggested that if I want the information I started to ask for I could ask my stenographer to read these reports that come to our desks and compile the information. I have more respect for my stenographer than to ask her to undertake that kind of chore. As a matter of fact I do not think that any of us were sent here by our constituents to do the kind, of research work that is suggested. The hon. member is suggesting that we should go through these cases individually in order to get any information that we may want.
I do not know the parties involved in this first bill. As is her right, Mrs. McRandall has come to parliament to ask for a divorce, and no doubt she is entitled to it. But surely this House of Commons should not be asked to approve of this bill without our being able to get information along the lines I have suggested. It seems to me that we should know whether the McRandalls had any children and, if so, what arrangements have been made for them or what arrangements are contemplated.
My understanding is that an act of parliament dissolving a marriage does not deal with the children at all. I understand that if there are children, proceedings must be taken before an appropriate court. I think we should know the circumstances in that connection before we are asked to approve of this divorce. We should know whether the sponsor of this bill is satisfied that Mrs. McRandall is the innocent party. We should know whether there has been proof that there was no collusion leading up to the petition for divorce. In view of the fact that parliament has decided that we are not
Private Bills-Divorce
going to transfer this business somewhere else, we as responsible members of parliament should undertake this job in a responsible way and find out whether we are competent to grant the divorce set out in Bill No. 103.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is making an appropriate and effective protest against this method of dealing with divorce. There are over 100 bills in this list and we are asked to give approval without having; any knowledge of what is involved. It is all very well to say that a committee in the other place does go into each case separately. I am free to confess that after having seen what is done there on one or two occasions the inquiry is not as perfunctory as it appeared to be at one time. But none the less I think it is time that this House of Commons objected to this manner of dealing with the solemn matter of the dissolution of marriage.
I do not think divorce should be encouraged; indeed I believe quite the opposite, but none the less if divorce is requested by an aggrieved person, that divorce should foe granted only after a proper judicial inquiry. I know that two provinces object to the establishment of courts for the granting o. divorce and hence these divorce bills are before us tonight. None the less I do not think anyone could object if some facilities were provided in one of our federal courts for an aggrieved person to plead his or her case for divorce. We have got to recognize that we have the divorce problem with us, that we have these bills coming beforeparliament regularly at every session, and therefore that there is divorce. If we are going to have divorce let us have it done after a proper and decent investigation.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. May I interject that we are on clause 1, and we should not be discussing the principle of divorce nor the methods which are provided for the passage of these divorce bills. What: we are discussing now is clause 1 of Bill Not 103, to dissolve the marriage between Eileen McDermott McRandall and Henry McRandall.


Major James William Coldwell: I think perhaps your point is well taken, Mr. Chairman, and I am not objecting to it. If we cannot discuss the principle, however, then the only thing for us to do is to rise and ask for particulars of every one of these divorce bills as they are called.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 104, for the relief of Laurice Mary Michel Shatilla -Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the sponsor of this bill or anyone else know any of the particulars in connection with this case? Are there any children?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Did you read the evidence?


Alphonse Fournier: If you want to know something why do you not read the evidence?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Members opposite are asking me if I have read the evidence. I have the evidence in my office. It is a pile more than a foot high.


Alphonse Fournier: Then why not read it if you are that curious?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because there are other things more important to the people of Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: The evidence is quite often a racket.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are things of more importance to the people of Winnipeg North Centre, and I am sure they do not expect me to spend my time reading the pile of -evidence that we receive in connection with these divorce cases. My point is that we .should not be dealing with these matters, but we are. If we have accepted the job, if a majority of the house says we should do the job, then let us do it properly.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead. Read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Therefore I ask whether in this case the couple had any children? If so, what arrangements are being made for the children? Which of the parties was the guilty one? Is this committee satisfied that it is competent to pass the bill and dissolve this marriage?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, may I preface my remarks by saying that I am against all these bills. I would go further than the hon. gentleman. I am against divorce, and I would vote against every one. We have the printed evidence in each of these cases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you read it?


Alphonse Fournier: No, because I am against divorce and I do not want to read these things; but if you are so curious about the details, whether or not they have children and so on, read the evidence. You will find it there. If you want to know who is


at fault you will find it there, and the evidence is taken under oath. The matter was before a committee of the other place where they have experienced men. If you are still not satisfied with that evidence why do you not stand up and vote against them? That is what I would do. I would stand up and vote against them. I am against these things. I do not like them, but while parliament is charged under our constitution with this work why not do it?


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak on these bills, but I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quite in order in speaking on them and asking for information if he wants it. What amazes me is to find members of this house who are opposed to divorce and yet are in favour of facilitating the passage of these bills through the house.


Alphonse Fournier: On a point of order, I know that I cannot speak on the principle of divorce, but what the hon. gentleman has said brings me into the debate again. I have never done anything to facilitate the passing of any divorce bills. I object at every session to the passing of them, and I have cried "on division" nearly every time they have come up. I understand that if parliament does not want to deal with these bills the only way to show that they do not want to do so is to throw them out.


Mr. Gibson:: That is unfair.


Alphonse Fournier: When you try to discuss them and tell us-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Public Works rose on a point of order. Surely he is getting beyond his point of order. He should not make a speech.


Alphonse Fournier: On the point of order, I want the hon. gentleman to withdraw the remark that I have helped to facilitate the passing of these bills. I have never done anything of the kind.


Donald MacInnis: I am not going to withdraw anything of the kind.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I think
there is a misunderstanding. The hon. member for Vancouver East did say that some hon. members who are opposed to divorce were facilitating the passage of these bills. The Minister of Public Works explained- and apparently he was one of those to whom the hon. member referred-that he had never done anything to facilitate the passage of these bills. 'I possibly should1 have told the Minister of Public Works that his point was not perhaps a point of order but a personal

explanation of what his attitude is. Therefore the hon. member does not have to withdraw anything, but he has to accept the statement of the minister as to his attitude.


Donald MacInnis: I will be very glad to
accept his statement. Now may I put my own construction on the statement? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was asking for information with respect to each of these bills.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Why?


Donald MacInnis: You ask him why. He
was asking for information with regard to these bills because he wanted to know.


An hon. Member:: Usually he can read.


Donald MacInnis: Every bit of information,
every question that he asked would hold up this and other divorce bills and make it more difficult to get them through the house. Yet my hon. friend gets up and finds fault with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He says: Why ask for your information here? Why don't you read the evidence that is placed in your mailbox every day?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: He does not have to do
that. He can ask for the information here. Others who take the same position as the minister jeer when a statement like that is made. We should be consistent about these things. We should not make a virtue of getting up and saying we are opposed to divorce and then object when somebody is really opposing it.


Mr. Fair:: The Minister of Public Works
has said that those who do not approve of these bills should get up and1 vote against them. He tells us at the same time that he is opposed to them, that he votes against them and calls "on division". I suggest to the members of the house including the Minister of Public Works, that they should vote for or against every bill that is brought in here. We will see then where the Minister of Public Works stands, whether he means what he has told us.


John Lambert Gibson: Let us waste everybody's
time.


Alphonse Fournier: I will vote right
now. I am against each and every one of them.


Robert Fair: That is the one way that we will get rid of divorce bills which we have been talking against for the past fifteen years.


Mr. Chevrier:: Get rid of a lot of tripe.


Robert Fair: Do not make a joke of parliament any more. Let us accept the invitation
Private Bills-Divorce
of the Minister of Public Works and vote against these bills. It will be the proper way to get rid of them.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 1 carry?


Alphonse Fournier: On division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Chairman. The longer this goes on the more ridiculous it becomes. The Minister of Public Works says -and I know that it is perfectly true-that he is against divorce lock, stock and barrel, and that he will vote against every divorce bill on which a vote is called. Yet he objects to my asking questions about the case of Mrs. Laurice Mary Michel Shatilla which is before us at the present time. My views are not the same as those of the Minister of Public Works. I do not like divorce. I deplore it just as much as anyone in this house. But, as has been said so well by the hon. member for Vancouver East on other occasions, I do not see that we enhance the sanctity of marriage by forcing people to remain together when love has gone. It may be that under the laws of this country Mrs. Shatilla has every right to claim a divorce. As the laws of Canada now stand the only way she can get that divorce is by coming to this parliament. If a vote is called without the sponsor giving us any information, I do not think she should suffer and be denied that right, and I would vote for the bill-


Alphonse Fournier: Without the information?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Absolutely; even though it
may seem a ridiculous position.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: The ridiculous
position in which you are putting yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the ridiculous position in which parliament is putting itself. Those who are opposed to divorce want to get the bills through. Some of the rest of us who admit there are occasions when divorces have to be granted do not like this way of dealing with it. But if we are forced to say yes or no as to whether Mrs. Shatilla should get her divorce, in the absence of anything to show it should not be granted I would say parliament should give it to her. But I submit that parliament is being completely irresponsible in just putting these bills through without getting the information. This is only the second bill tonight. The chairman will confirm that I asked questions on both of them, directly on the bill, refraining from discussing the whole matter of the practice. The discussion has gone into that matter, because we cannot get from the sponsor of these bills the answer to even such a simple question as whether or not any children are involved in the marriage.

Private Bills-Divorce


Donald MacInnis: I am not going to prolong the debate, but in case there should be a vote on any of these bills I want to make my position clear. I am going to vote in favour of every bill that comes here after being passed through the other place and receiving the endorsation of the committee to which it has been referred, until such time as this parliament provides another court for these people to apply for their divorces. As long as we refuse to give these people what they are entitled to by the laws of this country, I am going to vote for every divorce bill that comes properly to this house.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps we might obtain unanimous consent to take all the other bills together.


Some hon. Members:: No.



MIHALY KOVACS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 105, for the relief of Mihaly Kovacs-Mr. Winkler- Mr. Beaudoini in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member for Lisgar know anything about this couple?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I have looked into a great number of these bills. I have made a long list of answers, having to do with the children and all that sort of thing. But I thought it would be useless to bring it here, because after those simple questions had been answered I could think of a dozen more the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and many others could ask. They could keep us here indefinitely, so I do not intend to bring that list here unless I am instructed to do so by the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.



REBECCA GLICOFSKY BROWN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 106, for the relief of Rebecca Glicofsky Brown-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the sponsor of this bill tell us where Mrs. Brown lives?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I think it would expedite the business of the committee if hon. members would refrain from interjecting remarks. Instead they should stand up and take part in the debate in an orderly manner, if they so wish.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I do not know where Mrs. Brown lives. If I did he would probably ask for her telephone number.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think that would be like him. The sponsor of the bill apparently does not know any more about the circumstances surrounding this matter than we do. Apparently he does not pay any more attention to the transcripts of evidence than we do or the Minister of Public Works does. If these bills are voted upon separately I would divide with my colleagues and vote against them, because I do not believe we should vote for bills of this description without knowing something of the circumstances. Even if it is rather annoying to hon. members I would hope we might get the information. Failing that, I would hope hon. members might decide that some representations should be made so we can amend this method of granting divorces in this country, which is obnoxious to so many in this house.


Mr. Hansell:: I have spoken on a good many of these bills throughout the years. I find myself in the same position as others, that parliament is required to do something it does not want to do because of the method by which these matters are dealt with. That is why I often speak on these divorce bills. I am not against divorce when the reason for it has been absolutely proved. Sometimes I rise to oppose a bill when the reason has not been proven. I am afraid you are going to call me to order pretty soon, Mr. Chairman; but in connection with the questions asked the sponsor of these bills may I suggest the fact that he is the sponsor of all these bills-


Mr. Sinclair:: Not all.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, pretty nearly all the divorce bills. This indicates that the whole thing is a formality, and I do not think that

should be so. Other bills brought into this house are sent to other committees. Suppose the same situation should arise in the discussion of one of those other bills; the sponsor of the bill, who might be a cabinet minister, would rise to say, "I am sorry; I have not read the committee's report. I have not read the evidence to see why the bill should be passed. I am not in possession of the facts." We would say, "Well, you had better obtain all the facts." I am not suggesting that the hon. member for Lisgar should become familiar with all the facts concerning such a tremendous number of cases, but there is something he could do. It is not necessary for him as chairman of that committee to sponsor all these bills. They could be sponsored by thirty or forty or fifty members who could familiarize themselves with the facts and be able to tell this committee that the reason for which divorce is granted has been absolutely and soundly proven. For that reason, I protest the bills going through in this fashion. I might say that I am a member of the private bills committee. We do discuss some of these bills that go through. If we have any protest to make, we can make that protest in committee. I have no criticism of the hon. member for Lisgar in the way he conducts that committee. I believe he does a good job of it. If any of us do not want any of the bills to go through, he is quite willing to hear our reasons when we are in committee. But it does seem to me that a committee of this house should divide its work up in such a fashion that, if we are going to deal with these things, we could deal with them properly.
There is another matter, Mr. Chairman. There is a note of levity sounded when we deal with these bills. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that these bills are all very serious. They are serious for the reason that they have to do with one of the most valuable heritages any nation has, and that is the heritage of the home. Every one of these bills means that a home is being broken. Perhaps it is already broken. I do not know. I believe that we should be very careful about them, and should conduct these matters in a serious manner.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I just want to say one thing
in reply to the hon. member who was good enough to say some kind words about our committee, and the way it is conducted. He brought up one matter, and I understood him to say the sponsor of the bill should be familiar with the facts. I believe that is the essence of the whole matter. I have gone to the Senate divorce committee and listened
Private Bills-Divorce
to several of the cases. I have come to the conclusion that a mere reading of the evidence is not sufficient. Unless one is there to hear the witnesses and listen to the evidence, he is not really in possession of the facts. For that reason I am satisfied, as chairman of the committee, to sponsor any bills that are sent to me from the Senate committee.
Mr. Cold well:	There is the very point.
We are acting as a court without seeing the witnesses. No judge would give a verdict on merely reading written evidence.


George James McIlraith: Oh, yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Except perhaps on appeal
cases. I am not sufficiently familiar with law courts, since I am not a lawyer, but I would say that in cases which affect human relations judges want to see the witnesses and hear the evidence. These bills affect human relations. I do not think there is any question about that. My reading of law and procedure-I am rather fond of legal biography incidentally and I read it occasionally-is that the judge often comes to a conclusion in directing the jury and the jury comes to a conclusion on seeing the behaviour of the witnesses in the box. I have every respect for the hon. member for Lisgar and have no criticism of him. I am sure he would always try to be fair. I believe, however, that we have to protest this procedure.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the section
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 107, for the relief of Selma Rokowsky Kirzner-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I join in the tribute
paid by the hon. member for Macleod to the hon. member for Lisgar?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. May I suggest that from now on we proceed strictly in accordance with the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very well. May I ask the hon. member for Lisgar to take my compliment for granted, and I shall ask whether or not these parties had been married previous to this marriage?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I cannot answer that
question.

Private Bills-Divorce


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is there no
question about these bills to which we can get an answer? I do not blame the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Read the evidence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that the house is
asking the hon. member to do something that is completely unfair, to sponsor a bill about which he has no information at all. I should like to know whether these two people are Canadian citizens; and where they came from, if they came from outside of Canada. I should like to know if there are any children, and what arrangements have been made with respect to those children. I should like to know if we are competent to decide that this person is the innocent party, and that she should be granted the divorce. I may say that I discovered on some former occasions, when bills of this character were before the house, amendments have been moved seeking to deny to the guilty party the right to marry again; that is my reason for asking my last question. I think we should know whether the party to whom we are asked to give relief is really the innocent party.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bill carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, standing order No. 76 requires that clauses be called one at a time in the committee stage. I thought I heard you ask if the bill carried.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Since the -committee started on these bills no questions have been asked on section 2, and I thought it would save time if I asked whether the bill carried. I shall now call section 2.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, could we have a copy of the bill? If we are to deal with a particular clause, it is rather difficult when we have not a -copy of the bill here. I think this is a disgraceful performance myself.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I understand the bills have been distributed, and perhaps the hon. member will find them underneath his desk. I am informed by the clerk that these bills are put in the mail boxes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There would not be room for them under our desks.


James Arthur Ross: I have not said anything at all on this subject yet, Mr. Chairman. I sympathize with the chairman of this committee for having to go through this ordeal so often. He has pointed out that a reading of the evidence is not sufficient, and that if one does not see the witnesses he is greatly handicapped.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. We have had a lengthy debate on the principle of divorce and this procedure. I believe everyone will agree that in this instance the chairman has been most lenient. A moment ago I asked the members to proceed strictly in accordance with the rules. I ask that the remarks being made be strictly relevant to the section.


James Arthur Ross: I believe we should have a vote on the principle of this bill right now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall section 2 carry?


James Arthur Ross: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill if section 2 of Bill No. 107 is in the same form as is generally the case for these bills?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I have not a copy of the bill before me, but I understand they are all identical.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe we should be certain they are identical before we pass the section. Could we have section 2 read?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Section 2 reads:
The said Selma Rokowsky may at any time hereafter marry any man whom she might lawfully marry if the said marriage with the said Elijahu Kirzner had not been solemnized.
Shall section 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 108, for the relief of Ferdinand Langlois-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to ask whether the sponsor knows in what province this case originated, and whether the language of the bill is the same as the language of the other bills from which section 2 was read a moment ago. Perhaps he could tell me if there are any children involved in this case.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: The same answer applies;
no information, Mr. Chairman.


Major James William Coldwell: No information, the sponsor says. I wonder what we are going to do about it, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: Vote against it.


Major James William Coldwell: There are other members
of the standing committee here. I can quite

sympathize with the chairman, in his inability to read all these bills. But there are other members of the standing committee here. Perhaps some other hon. member of that committee can answer the question that I have just asked. I should like to know if there is anybody in the committee who knows the circumstances of this divorce action.


Some hon. Members:: Question,


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause
carry?


James Arthur Ross: No, Mr. Chairman. We
wish to protest this bill right now. There is no evidence and there is nothing else-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I suppose that I
should point out to the hon. member for Souris that what is before the committee now is clause 1. He said that he protests the bill. What is before the committee now is clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Clause 1 is the operative
clause, is it not, Mr. Chairman?


Louis-René Beaudoin: That does not
matter. There could be a vote on clause 1; there could be a vote on clause 2; there could be a vote when I ask if the preamble carries; there could be a vote when I ask if the bill carries. If some hon. members say no, then the next question is: Those in favour of clause 1 will please say yea.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is right.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We are on clause
1 now. Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those in favour
of clause 1 will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those against will
please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
Section agreed to: Yeas, 65; nays, 42.
On section 2-Right to marry again.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause
carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee
ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Private Bills-Divorce


Louis-René Beaudoin: Does the committee want a standing vote or shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bill
carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Bill reported.



VIOLET EDITH MACDONALD HARRIS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 109, for the relief of Violet Edith Macdonald Harris -Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1

Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before section 1, which is the one that would dissolve this marriage, is carried, may I ask if the sponsor has been able to collect any information since the last time I put a question to him?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Repeat the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I asked the sponsor of this bill if he had been able to collect any information concerning the parties whose marriage is dissolved by clause 1.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I have the same information that the hon. member has.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, Mr. Chairman, is no information at all. I may have the information concerning this couple piled up in my room, but I certainly do not have it here.


An hon. Member:: Why ask for it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that some hon. members have come in since we started. If we are going to deal with Bill No. 109, letter Z-3 of the Senate, it is a bill going through parliament on the same basis as that on which other bills go through parliament and my view is that we should deal with it in a responsible manner. We should have some of the information-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member is discussing procedure again. I do not think it is in order to discuss procedure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am just stating that I think we should have full information concerning Mrs. Violet Edith Macdonald Harris_ and her former husband.


Mr. MacDougall:: Run upstairs and get it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Preamble agreed to.	Mr. Abbott: Why?
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not forget the title.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Louis-René Beaudoin: When the bill
carries, the title carries as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


John Lorne MacDougall: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Standing order 76 reads as follows:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I agree with the hon. member. The previous procedure would be admissible only with unanimous consent.
Bill reported.



FRANCOISE BRUNET CRASSOWSKI

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 110, for the relief of Francoise Brunet Crassowski- Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Alphonse Fournier: On division.
Bill reported.



EMILY RITA ROWLANDS SIMPSON

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Emily Rita Rowlands Simpson-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1 -Marriage dissolved.
Major James William Coldwell: Can the hon. member who sponsored this bill give us any information at all about it? Can he tell us the number of children involved, where the case originates, when it was heard, or any other particulars that he may have in his possession? Can he tell us anything at all about the bill or can any other member of the standing committee on miscellaneous and private bills tell us anything about this bill? We really should know something about the circumstances and the matters we are inquiring about before we pass this bill.


Major James William Coldwell: That is why I voted against the clause in the other bill when it was put to the vote.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Major James William Coldwell: Nine o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to get a crack at the sponsor of this bill before nine o'clock.


Mr. Boivin:: You are too late. It is nine o'clock.
The Deputy Chairman.:	It being nine
o'clock, shall I report these bills?
Section stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Mr. Beaudoin from the committee of the whole reports that the committee has considered certain divorce bills and asked him to report the same. When shall the report be received?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall these bills be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One at a time, please, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It is more or less a procedural motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The motion for third reading is a procedural motion?


Mr. Speaker:: With regard to divorce bills it has been considered a procedural motion. I realize it is nine o'clock, but I would think that the third reading of these bills could be proceeded with.



THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No.	103,	for	the relief	of	Eileen
McDermott McRandall.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Laurice Mary Michel Shatilla.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Mihaly Kovacs.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Rebecca Glicofsky Brown.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No.	107,	for	the relief	of	Selma
Rokowsky Kirzner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Ferdinand Langlois.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Violet Edith Macdonald Harris.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Franpoise Brunet Crassowski.-Mr. Winkler.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Trade Agreements
The United States, in addition, has granted numerous important cuts on its entire schedule of tariffs which apply to chemicals, and related products. These include important by-products of the pulp and paper industry, and a number of other products in which our chemical producers are interested. A list of farm products, of definite interest to Canada, has now been added by the United States to the extensive concessions it made in this field at Geneva. Besides Cheddar cheese, the new tariff reductions affect sheep and lambs, frozen blueberries, grapes, hybrid seed corn and mustard seed, amongst others. A substantial reduction was made in the tariff on Canadian whisky. For our coastal fisheries, the concession on canned salmon is accompanied by other concessions which include sardines, fresh mackerel, smoked or kippered herring, clams, fish oil, seal oil and whale oil.
Under the heading of wood and wood products, the important concessions received from the United States on plywoods are supplemented by reduced tariffs on packing boxes and shooks, for which the rate is now to be 3| per cent, and a variety of products manufactured of wood, such as paint brush handles, broom handles and hockey sticks.
Concessions from the United States on metals, and on a wide range of manufactured goods, will be of interest to Canadian manufacturers, who will find that increased opportunities have thus been provided for them to enter the United States market.
Of the sixteen trade agreements concluded by Canada at Torquay, seven were negotiated with important countries of western Europe. Our trade relations with France should be strengthened by the new agreement, which will lead to improved trade for both countries. The negotiations with France were conducted in a most cordial spirit and with the desire on both sides to accomplish the utmost in our common interests. The accession of western Germany has now strengthened the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Her concessions to Canada include farm products, fish, and a number of other commodities. The agreement with Germany is a good omen, that, once the economy of the federal German republic can be stabilized, there will be real opportunities for complementary trade with Canada. In addition, we have now renewed and extended our trade agreements with Italy, with each of the three Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and we have made our first post-war trade agreement with Austria. Belgium remains, from our point of view, one of the best centres of trade on the

continent of Europe. Her absence and the absence of Holland from the list of our new agreements is evidence mainly of the fact that our earlier agreements with the Benelux union left little scope for further improvement at Torquay.
The Department of Trade and Commerce has been unsparing in its efforts to expand and diversify our external markets. This group of new agreements made with important trading countries of western Europe, is illustrative of government policy in regard to exports. Turkey also became a signatory to the general agreement on tariffs and trade and, in addition, we are pleased to have been successful in concluding a tariff agreement with Turkey. Because of currency difficulties in recent years, all of the countries have been unable to buy our goods to the extent that, in other circumstances, they would have wished. Some of their difficulties are being overcome, however, and our trade relations are being strengthened for the future. As a North American country and a dollar country, Canada is anxious to trade with continental Europe, both to buy and to sell. As a member of the North Atlantic treaty organization, and as a country associated with the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, we are aware of the added strength which is given to common aims, by this closer cementing of our commercial ties with continental Europe.
Amongst the Asiatic countries, we concluded four new trade agreements at Torquay, one of these with our commonwealth partner India, and others with the Philippines, Indonesia and Korea. With war existing as a threat, and as a fact, in various parts of the Far East, we have welcomed the efforts made by these countries to participate constructively in the trade and tariffs agreements of the free world. With widespread aspirations for capital investment and development existing as a strong force throughout Asia, we have given our assistance wherever possible and have contributed to the development of reciprocal trade. In our tariff negotiations with the Philippines, we achieved a reduction in the preferential margins granted there to United States goods on a number of items, this being a step forward in overcoming part at least of the discrimination which has existed against Canadian goods. Reduction of preferential margins was obtained on wheat flour, agricultural implements, canned salmon, and a number of other items.
Amongst the Latin American countries, new agreements were concluded with the Dominican republic, Haiti, and Peru. An

excellent agreement was made with the Dominican republic which granted Canada a number of concessions to supplement those we received at Annecy, including fisheries products and a variety of manufactured goods. Our agreement with Haiti is important, from our point of view, in overcoming a disadvantage which has been suffered in that market in the past by our exporters of fish in brine. At Torquay, Canada received mostfavoured-nation treatment from Peru for the first time, an important objective which we have had in mind for a number of years. In addition, we received tariff concessions from Peru on smoked herring, apples, processed milk, canned fruits and vegetables, amongst others. These agreements, added to the ones which have been concluded during the past year with Venezuela, Costa Rica and Ecuador, go far to complete our structure of trade treaties with Latin American countries. Canadian exporters in a number of fields have wanted to expand their connections with Latin American markets and our trade promotion policy has been a vigorous one in that direction. This policy will be continued to the fullest extent possible, even during this period of defence preparations.
In the case of Cuba, I wish to make an announcement of considerable importance. The government of Canada has ensured the purchase on that market, by Canadian refineries or otherwise, of 75,000 short tons of Cuban raw sugar, within each of the calendar years 1951, 1952 and 1953, out of supplies made available by Cuba to the world market. The sugar purchased under this undertaking is to be shipped from Cuban ports, imported into, and not to be re-exported, from Canada. It is to be noted in this connection that purchases under this commitment will normally be made through the agency of private sugar refineries in Canada, and that no subsidization will be involved on the part of the government. A portion, however, of the mostfavoured-nation duty will be remitted to the manufacturers, sufficient in amount to equalize the laid-down cost of Cuban sugar with the laid-down cost of preferential sugars from empire countries.
The sale of non-preferential sugars has reached very low levels in the Canadian market in the recent past. It was never intended that the effect of the preference, extended by Canada on sugar of empire' origin, should be to exclude completely nonpreferential sugars from our market. We have undertaken this new arrangement to ensure that at least some part of our total imports of sugar will be purchased from Cuba during the next three years. We are prepared, furthermore, to enter into similar
Trade Agreements
arrangements with other traditional suppliers of non-preferential sugar to the Canadian market, it being understood that the total imports under all such arrangements will not be in excess of 150,000 short tons of raw sugar per year during each of the next three years. Under present supply conditions, it is not thought that producers of non-preferential sugars, other than Cuba, will be in a position to take full advantage of this arrangement for some time to come.
We have avoided, for the present, any impairment in the sugar preference which has traditionally been extended to the British West Indies and other suppliers of sugar within the commonwealth and empire. Canadian exporters, in recent years in particular, have been in search of external markets beyond those which are encompassed in the British preferential tariff system. The production of our export industries has grown enormously during this period since the second world war, while rigorous import restrictions have been enforced against Canadian goods throughout the British preferential area. These two factors in combination have created the necessity for Canadian exporters to extend their efforts beyond their traditional markets. In recent years, the difficulties we have encountered in the British West Indies have been extreme and have been remedied only in part by the recent relaxations of import controls effected there. It is natural, therefore, that there has been a growing interest in the Cuban market on the part of Canadian exporters, who have, at the same time, retained their traditional desire to trade with the British West Indies to the fullest extent possible.
The Cuban government has now undertaken to revalidate until January 1, 1954, important tariff concessions which were originally granted to Canada at Geneva, including amongst others, codfish, wheat flour and potatoes. This will be of definite interest to our maritime provinces. Cuba has withdrawn four detailed concessions from us which she made at Geneva. None of them has accounted for much trade, and Canada is being compensated by a small reduction in the Cuban duty on codfish.
While the new agreements made at Torquay provide a signal contribution to Canada's external trade policy, by far the most important accomplishment was the prolongation of the Geneva and Annecy schedules of tariff concessions. This has now been arranged for a firm period of three years, until January 1, 1954. Tariff concessions originally made by other countries at Geneva and Annecy were contractually bound only until January 1, 1951, after which

Trade Agreements
they could be withdrawn upon due notice. When it is remembered that the twenty-three countries which participated at Geneva account for three-quarters of total world exports, it is clear how important is this matter of prolongation of the Geneva agreements, both for Canadian trade and for the stability of world trade. Concessions made to Canada at Geneva by the United States alone, covered in some fashion almost ninety-five per cent of total dutiable imports by the United States from Canada. Now these gains have been safeguarded for Canadian exporters for at least the next three years.
An opportunity was provided at Torquay for countries to exercise their right, under article XXVIII of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, to withdraw or modify items in their schedules of tariff concessions, in advance of prolonging these schedules for the next three years. Canada and the United States, and a number of major trading countries, undertook not to withdraw any concessions from one another, in the interest of maintaining their present agreements intact. As it turned out, we have succeeded in keeping to an absolute minimum the number of concessions withdrawn from Canada by other countries and compensation was received in every case. They are described in the information which is being made available to the press.
A good deal of attention has already been given to the fact that new agreements were not concluded at Torquay between the United States on the one side and the other commonwealth countries on the other. From the Canadian point of view, it is a matter of regret that these countries failed, at Torquay, to add to the substantial body of tariff concession which they made to one another at the earlier negotiations. It is to be emphasized at the same time, however, that all these countries still continue as full members of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Their trade agreements with one another, which have existed under the general agreement on tariffs and trade since 1947, are now carried forward virtually intact. I do not wish to intervene in any way in a matter for which the public explanation must come from the governments directly concerned. At the same time, it should be explained, for the benefit of hon. members, that the existing agreements between the United States and the commonwealth countries, other than ourselves, have not been impaired. What these countries have failed to gain is nothing more than the benefits
[Mr. Howe.l
which might otherwise have accrued from Torquay by reason of additions to their present agreements.
Before concluding this statement I should like to pay tribute to the team of officials which conducted the tariff negotiations on behalf of the Canadian government at Torquay. Small in number, the Canadian delegation carried on exacting and complicated discussions over a long period of months. I should like to pay special tribute to Mr. Hector McKinnon, who headed the group which carried on the tariff negotiations. The other members were:
C. M. Isbister, Department of Trade and Commerce; W. J. Callaghan, Department of Finance; A. E. Richards, Department of Agriculture; J. P. C. Gauthier, Department of Trade and Commerce; A. L. Neal, Department of Trade and Commerce; B. G. Barrow, Department of Trade and Commerce; H. V. Jarrett, Department of Trade and Commerce;
S.	S. Reisman, Department of Finance; and H. H. Wright, Department of External Affairs. From the Canadian point of view, Torquay succeeded in deepening and widening the channels of our export trade. The benefits of the new agreements will begin to accrue in the near future and their long-run importance is even greater. Taking into account the new countries which joined in the general agreement on tariffs and trade at Torquay, the total trade of GATT countries now accounts for about eighty-five per cent of the trade of the free world. This has been a great accomplishment of international organization during the past five years, and Canada has had a leading part in it. Whatever the future is to be, Canada and Canadian exporters have been well served by what has now been accomplished at Torquay.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words to the remarks of my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), particularly as to the effect of the Torquay agreements on the Canadian customs tariff. In this connection I shall table at the conclusion of my statement the Canadian tariff schedule V which contains all the tariff reductions and bindings which were granted by Canada in the course of the Torquay conference. Copies will be available to all members of parliament tomorrow morning.
I do not have to remind members of the house that tariff negotiations are essentially a matter of bargaining, of give and take, in which countries agree to reduce their tariffs on some products in return for concessions on products in the other countries' tariff so

that trade may expand to the mutual advantage of all concerned. In this broad international effort to reduce barriers to trade in the interests of our common prosperity, Canada has continued to play a leading role which is appropriate to our position as the third largest trading nation in the world.
I would like to take a moment to explain schedule V of the Torquay agreement, the significance of the tariff items and the rates expressed in it. The first and most important stage in the Torquay negotiations was the conclusion of separate agreements among pairs of participating countries. Altogether 147 such two-sided agreements were reached between the countries participating. Canada completed successful agreements with sixteen of these countries. As my colleague has already said, in these agreements Canada undertook not to raise for a period of three years its customs duties on the items specified in schedule V beyond the maximum rates stated therein. In return, of course, other countries gave corresponding undertakings in their tariff as explained by my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In some cases the rates shown in schedule V involve reductions from existing duties, while in other cases they represent bindings of existing rates against increase. There is a similar schedule of maximum rates of duty for each of the countries which took part in the negotiations, bound for a similar period of three years. Under the most-favourednation principle, all the concessions which Canada made are automatically extended to all the members of the group regardless of whether or not they negotiated directly with Canada. Similarly, the concessions of the other countries are automatically extended to Canada.
The Canadian schedule V is divided into two parts. Part I includes all the undertakings with respect to those countries to whom we grant most-favoured-nation treatment, and part II covers the undertakings made to those countries to whom we grant the preferential tariff. The concessions made in the most-favoured-nations part cover 397 items or subitems, of which 261 are reductions and 136 are bindings of existing rates. Canada's total imports from all countries under the 261 items or subitems on which the mcst-favoured-nations rate was reduced at Torquay amounted to about $390 million in 1949.
Part II of the Canadian schedule contains some seventy-five items or subitems on which reductions were made in the preferential tariff. These reductions should mean
Trade Agreements
increased opportunities for the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries to export to the Canadian market.
I feel I should say a further word about the effect of Torquay on Canada's position with respect to the commonwealth preferential system, because I am afraid there has been some misunderstanding about this matter. To begin with, I would like to make quite clear to members of the house the conditions under which the Torquay negotiations were undertaken and conducted.
Under the rules governing the tariff conference at Torquay, as well as the previous conferences at Geneva and Annecy, it was provided that the reduction of preferences was to be one of the matters subject to negotiation. These rules state clearly that "prior international obligations shall not be invoked to frustrate negotiations with respect to preferences, it being understood that agreements which result from such negotiations and which conflict with such obligations shall not require the modification or termination of such obligations except with the consent of the parties to such obligations".
The rules go on to say that "no participating government shall be required to grant unilateral concessions or to grant concessions to other governments without receiving adequate concessions in return". It was clearly understood that no preferences need be reduced nor any tariff concessions granted except in return for reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions, and it was up to each country to decide what constituted a satisfactory agreement from its own point of view.
These rules governing the conduct of the Torquay negotiations with respect to preferences were accepted by all the participating countries, including all the commonwealth countries. Indeed, as a practical matter, it would be quite impossible for Canada or the other commonwealth countries to negotiate successful and mutually advantageous agreements with countries outside the preferential system unless they were prepared to negotiate on this basis. This is so because the Canadian tariff and the tariffs of the other commonwealth countries provide for a preferential treatment over pretty well the whole range of their tariffs.
This government has never taken a rigid or doctrinaire position on the matter of preferences either with respect to their retention or modification. For that matter, as members of the house will recall, Canada took

Trade Agreements
the lead many years ago in granting preferential treatment to commonwealth countries. As hon. members know, we have used the device of commonwealth preferences as a device for expanding trade. We have never regarded it as a device for restricting trade.
Our objective has always been to expand trade on as wide a basis as possible. Indeed, this is the only way in which we can find adequate outlets for the products of our expanding economy. For this reason, while the government continues to attach a high importance to the development of intercommonwealth trade, it has never allowed our preferential arrangements to prevent us from taking advantage of new opportunities for expanding Canada's trade. In order to find adequate outlets for the products of the different regions and industries of this country, we must take advantage of such opportunities.
In the course of the Torquay tariff negotiations, as was the case at Geneva and Annecy, in order to obtain valuable concessions from the United States, western Europe and other non-commonwealth countries, we agreed to the modification and in some cases to the elimination of certain margins of preference. Having said this, I want to make it clear that Canada has not abandoned commonwealth preferences. These preferences have been modified in successive negotiations of trade agreements since 1935, but they are still an important part of our tariff structure.
I do not intend to take the time at this late hour to go into detail on the several hundred items contained in schedule V. This is being done in the information being released to the press this evening. I would like to say, however, that in making tariff reductions we have in many instances selected products which would, in these times of inflation and high prices, help to ease the burden for the Canadian consumer. In that connection, Canadian housewives will be interested in the reduction of the customs duty on such items as grapefruit juice, bananas, salt pork and beef, cocoa beans, walnuts, canned fish, and household matches. Of benefit to the consumer generally are the reductions on rubber tires, rubber hose, household furniture, hand tools, certain electrical appliances, and cutlery.
We have also tried to keep in mind the needs of Canadian industry and have made a number of important reductions in equipment, parts, and raw materials, which should contribute in a real way to lower costs of production-machinery of all kinds and parts thereof, motor vehicle parts, off-highway

trucks, rayon yarn and rayon fabric, just to mention a few of the important products affected.
Of special interest to agriculture are the reductions on insecticides, baling wire, seed and grain cleaning machines, and electric motors for attachment to farm implements.
I know that members will be interested in knowing how soon the tariff reductions made by Canada will come into force. The concessions exchanged among Canada, the United States, France and a number of other countries will come into effect on June 6. These, I believe, cover by far the largest part of schedule V. The exact date on which Canada will extend concessions negotiated with the other countries depends on when they are in a position to take similar action. It is expected that all the Torquay concessions will be in force not later than November 20.
As in the case of the previous agreements, the tariff changes contained in schedule V will be brought into effect under the authority of section 11 of the customs tariff.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after nine o'clock the house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence forces-
245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which $183,050,000 will be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, it was very comforting and reassuring to hear the minister say, in closing his address this afternoon, that Canada is not at war. I am sorry he did not have the opportunity of seeing the five o'clock edition of this afternoon's Journal before making that remark. I have it before me, and these are the headlines: "Big force of Russian planes massed near Korea-Marshall." And directly underneath that: "Atomic fire rain no dream, says Martin, pleading for fighting Canadian spirit. 'Whip up fury against Soviet threat'." Another headline: "Red Japs not far from Japan." Then on the other side of the page: "British unit honoured on epic stand."

It seems to me the time has come to do away with these soft speeches, to let the people of Canada know we are in a very precarious position at the present time, and to give the people a little better knowledge of the enemy we are fighting. We may not be at war, but we are in a war, and in it right up to our necks. The last sentence in the white paper tabled by the minister has this to say:
We must be prepared to meet either the challenge of general war or the continuation of effort over a generation.
That does not sound very much as though we were not at war. Probably we do not realize just how true that statement is. There can be no peace for any free country until the scourge of communism is wiped off the face of the earth. Let us not forget that at any time. We have been warned time and again by the various communist leaders that they intend to conquer the world and will let nothing stop them. In 1847 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in drawing up their communist manifesto, had this to say:
The communists declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
In 1920 Lenin had this to say:
It is necessary to use any ruse, evasion, cunning, unlawful methods, concealment of the truth. As long as capitalism and socialism exist we cannot live in peace.
That is the enemy we are fighting today, not only on the field of battle but in the cold war. The only way we can overcome communism is either by defeating it in an all-out war or by keeping our forces built up to such an extent that the communist forces will not dare attack the western powers, and keeping them that way until some internal revolution upsets the communist government in Russia. Those are the only two alternatives.
We cannot win this war by arms alone. We have to fight by means of propaganda and by feeding and clothing the undernourished peoples of the world. The Colombo plan as it is drafted is very commendable, but it is about twenty years too late. Now we have lost most of the Orient, because the only policy we had there in the early days [DOT] was to get out of it everything we could and put back as little as we could get away with.
As far as the arms race is concerned, if we can believe press reports that we see from day to day Russia is far ahead, so far that it is going to take us a long time to catch up at the rate we are going, and maybe we will not have that time. I believe it was the hon. member for Acadia who on February 15 of this year placed on Hansard a quotation from the June, 1950, issue of
Supply-National Defence United Nations World, which said Russia had 30 million trained men at her disposal. That was a year ago; we can draw our own conclusions as to what she may have today. On February 14 I placed on Hansard a quotation which said Russia was producing 400 jet planes a month. That same quotation said that the United States was only producing 250 planes per month of all types. Speaking of plane production, Mr. Chairman, only recently a number of members visited the Canadair plant in Montreal, and saw the possibility of producing numerous planes there. At that time some of us were told that the company was producing something like ten F-86 Sabres per month. If they were given the materials and manpower, they could produce ten per day. On page 6 of this white paper the minister says:
The reason that radar and fighter defence is not already fully operational is that the radar, the type of communications selected and the aircraft-the F-86E Sabre and the CF-100 Canuck-have only been recently developed and have not yet been produced in the numbers required. As fast as aircraft can be produced, regular and auxiliary fighter squadrons will be manned and equipped to war strength. In the interim, the R.C.A.F. has mobile radar sets and Vampire and Mustang fighters.
If it is only a case of waiting for production of these types of planes, let us give them the men and materials and let them produce the planes. Then we can bring our forces up to, strength. In a time like this nothing should stand in the way of defence production. We saw an exhibition put on by the CF-100 over a year ago. If all the prophecies and statements made regarding that particular aircraft are true, we certainly should have more than one in the air at this time. I believe we had two, but one of them crashed. After a year we have exactly one of the type of aircraft that Canada claims is the best of its kind in the world. We cannot spend all of our time experimenting. We have to make a start somewhere. We have these two types of planes, we have the means to produce them, so let us go ahead and produce them.
Over a year and a half ago. I asked the minister about anti-submarine vessels. He said there was a new type under consideration, and construction would start shortly. I believe the keel was laid in January, 1950- the minister can correct me if I am wrong. These ships, as well as these planes, have to be produced as quickly as possible. We cannot waste time, so let us get at it. This is a matter which concerns our very existence. It is not a game. It cannot be a game, because the other fellows will not play fair. If we are going to lick them, we will have to get to work and get into production. Korea is only the opening battle in this war. We have no reason to believe it will not spread

Supply-National Defence until it is a global conflict. We must build up our forces and our armaments now. Canada has a three-year program under way, and that is fine. The program should have been started three years ago, because we do not know whether it will be a matter of weeks before we are actually engaged in battle either here or in Europe or some place else.
Speaking of being engaged in a battle, I do not believe the minister or anyone else in this house could convince those boys in the foxholes in Korea that we are not in a war. If they are willing to give us all they have, surely the least we can do is to gear ourselves to maximum production to give them everything we can to help them along. We have no reason to believe that this war, when and if it breaks out, is going to be in Europe or in Asia or in Africa, the middle east or anywhere else. It may be right here. We also have no reason to believe that the Russians have not at this time, somewhere in the north, set up camouflaged rocket installations. It is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility.


Brooke Claxton: Where, in Canada?


Ray Thomas: I said in the northern part of the country.
. Mr. Claxton: There is no evidence whatever of that.


Ray Thomas: That is right; there is no evidence whatever of it. You would not expect to have any evidence of it. Things will get hot enough around here if they are up there setting up those installations.


Brooke Claxton: They are not.


Ray Thomas: We do not know. The minister' says there is no evidence that they are. However, the north is quite a large territory, and I d6 not believe the minister or anybody else has covered it all foot by foot.


Brooke Claxton: We are doing it by air, and nobody else is, so far as we know.


Ray Thomas: That is what I said, Mr. Chairman, so far as we know; that is the point I am making. We have no reason to believe they could not send suicide bombing missions, and if they did central Canada would make a beautiful target. Practically nine-tenths of our industry is consolidated in that one little spot. We need a further decentralization of our defence industries, so that if the one area should be knocked out we could still carry on. We have all the power- coal, water and gas that is needed in the province of Alberta. I am inviting those industries to come out there. Speaking for my own constituency, they could move in
tMr. Thomas.]

next door to the Leduc oil field any time they wish, and they will be welcome.
According to the minister's statement the reserves are going to be used as the basis for recruiting for the 27th brigade. I would suggest that the minister start looking around now for ways and means of recruiting men in the reserve forces to bring them up to strength. A strong reserve force in Canada could well mean life or death to Canadian civilization.
One more point, Mr. Chairman, and that is the paying of income tax by the members of the special force. No man who volunteers to face death to fight for the things we believe are right should be asked to pay taxes to help equip himself. It should be enough that these men are willing to fight our battle for us, suffer untold misery and sometimes death. They should not be asked to dig into that pittance which is their pay to give some of it back to the government. We are fighting a war, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most important war that has ever been fought in history. Let us not go about it haphazardly. Let us fight this war with every ounce of our resources and every means at our disposal. But let us fight this war according to the highest ideals inherent in the Christian democracy that we represent.


Mr. Stick:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking of defence, one is mindful of the problem facing this country, with its large area and scattered population. We cannot by any stretch of the imagination adequately defend all parts of this country. Our defence is therefore interwoven with the United States in defending the North American continent, and that policy is sound common sense.
We have heard something of invasion by Russia by way of Alaska, and by paratroopers in our northwest and British Columbia. While nothing is impossible in modern war, my opinion, for what it is worth, is that this natural fear by those who live in that part of Canada is not fully justified.
The main principles of war never change; the methods by which war is conducted do change and change rapidly in modern times. One of the first principles of waging successful war is to destroy the war-making potential of the enemy. The second principle is to concentrate overwhelming power at the correct time and place, and to strike with all the force at one's command to gain a favourable decision. To carry these principles out by invading Alaska or our Northwest Territories would in no way destroy our warmaking potential nor would it have any decisive effect on winning a war on this continent by invasion.

You have only to look at this vast territory, thinly populated, with its tough terrain and climate, readily to see how formidable such a task is. Besides, the enemy would be fighting at the end of a long line of communications. To feed and maintain troops with all the equipment a modern army requires to wage successful war under such circumstances would be hazardous in the extreme. Especially is this so in the face of two of the most powerful military countries in the world, Canada and the United States, who could concentrate their great power much quicker and on shorter lines of communication. In the last war, Japan tried something of the sort when she landed troops in the Aleutian islands, but as soon as we concentrated against her, and after some small-scale fighting, she cleared out. Nuisance raids on a small or somewhat larger scale could be attempted, but they would have little or no effect on winning a war and their value to an enemy would be only to draw our attention away from the main threat and to force us to concentrate more troops than necessary for the defence of this territory.
A third world war means a global war. In such an event our main danger would be on the Atlantic. During the last two world wars we won the battle of the Atlantic by only a very small margin; and many times it was touch and go with us. The history of this struggle during the last war clearly shows that we won only just in time. If the new modern German submarine with the schnorkel device had made its appearance sooner and in quantity, it would have gone very hard with us indeed.
This is the menace we face today. From the best available information we find that Russia has large numbers of those modern submarines in commission; and if our countermeasures are not equal to the task of dealing with them, we can look forward with great anxiety to our shipping on the Atlantic. I do not wish to say more about this matter at this time, nor do I think it advisable. However, I do think the attention of the committee should be drawn to it.
We have been obliged to learn, abruptly and rather brutally, that one cannot beat something with nothing. Noble gestures, honest purposes and good resolutions will not of themselves stop a military invasion. Planes and tanks are required to stop planes and tanks.
In that connection, we have also had forced upon us the realization that appropriations in parliament do not equal arms in the field. We may eventually learn to speak of "arms aid" not in terms of so many millions appropriated, but in terms of so many weapons
Supply-National Defence put in the hands of troops and of so many men trained and ready to act.
We also have learned that we have been and are being faced by an implacable and entirely unscrupulous enemy. The free people of the world will be attacked when and how that enemy chooses. There is no reliance to be placed upon honeyed words or "peace petitions." There is no peace and there is no chance of achieving it except by matching strength with strength.
General Eisenhower speaking on this subject last fall stated to the American people as follows:	"Get tough with yourselves to
assure victory in this bitter, and probably prolonged struggle."
All lesser considerations must wait, he said; we cannot tolerate politics as usual any more than we can tolerate business as usual.
"The die is cast in Asia, but we are in no limited conflict. Free Europe ... is a tempting target for predatory military force." And he warned that Soviet planners contemplate the same fate for all the world, including the United States of America and Canada, as Russia has imposed on its satellite countries.
We in Newfoundland are the cornerstone of North Atlantic defence. That is the reason for so many United States naval, land and air bases in our province. One look at the map of North America can demonstrate this. I find that at present only one ship of the Royal Canadian Navy is permanently stationed in Newfoundland, and that is used chiefly for training purposes. I really think this is not sufficient at this time and would suggest for the consideration of the naval authorities that at least one additional ship, either a destroyer or frigate, should be permanently based in Newfoundland waters. This, I believe, is necessary and would stimulate recruiting and training for our naval forces. The Royal Navy had such a ship stationed at St. John's for many years with excellent results. I am convinced we can do likewise with even better results.
I should like at this time to speak briefly about our forces in Korea. This parliament called them to the colours; this House of Commons sent them overseas. During this session very little has been said about our boys fighting in this distant land. Very little has been published lately by the press of this country about how our forces are faring. Without in any way criticizing anybody, I do think everybody has been somewhat negligent in this matter. We have a duty to those men of ours, namely to see to it that they are ever in our thoughts, that we take a great interest in their welfare and that we are

Supply-National Defence solidly behind them in all they do. They are fighting as much for freedom and democracy in Korea as if they were fighting on the soil of Canada. There are fighting for each and every one of us and they must be made to feel that the members of this parliament feel that way about them. In no sense must they even think that they are a long way from home and out of our thoughts. We can and must do all that is possible to stimulate their fighting spirit and to help to maintain their morale which is so essential.
In this respect I suggest for the consideration of the minister that a small party of members of the house in the not too distant future proceed to Korea and visit all our forces there, conveying our interest and good wishes to all ranks. They are the flower of our youth and the pride of the nation. To us they represent Canada; to us they are Canada.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, Canada's defence policy or defence program, perhaps I should say, for the next three years, was put before parliament by the minister on February 5; and the white paper which we received yesterday is to a large extent a reiteration of what he said at that time. I welcome the minister's statement for several reasons. To begin with, I welcome it because it was the first statement of defence policy worthy of the name which we have had in the past several years. As to the program, the main emphasis in it is on the development of air power. With that emphasis I think the majority of the members of this committee and of the people of Canada will agree, particularly at this time. There are several reasons for that. This country is particularly well adapted to the development of an air force, and the development of a force of that sort takes a considerable length of time. For that reason alone I was glad to see that the government had decided this year to put a very considerable amount of money into new aircraft, the building of new fields and things of that kind.
With the objectives of our national defence policy which were stated by the minister on February 5, and set out at page 91 of Hansard, I think most of us are in full agreement. I should like to read them again. They are as follows:
(1)	The Immediate defence of Canada and North America from direct attack;
(2)	The implementation of any undertakings made by Canada under the charter of the United Nations, or under the North Atlantic treaty or other agreement for collective security;
(3)	The organization to build up our strength in a total war.
The mere statement of these objectives, Mr. Chairman, immediately raises the question of how and when they are to be met.


The minister proceeded to tell us about that, and to examine each of these objectives in turn, to some extent.
First, the defence of Canada against direct attack is, of course, and must be our primary concern in any discussion on defence matters. From the point of view of the air, we are under a program to counter the threat of Russian bombing, through the use of a radar screen, backed up by fighter squadrons. I think there is no doubt such a project should be our first line * of defence; but I wonder how effective a defence of this kind we are to have.
The over-all plan for the air force, as stated by the minister, calls for forty squadrons. Of these, eleven fighter squadrons are to be in Europe. A considerable number of the remaining twenty-nine squadrons will be transport, reconnaissance and other aircraft of different types along that line. The question, then, is how many fighter squadrons that will leave for the direct defence of this country against enemy bombing. Furthermore, how many of these fighter squadrons will be regular squadrons which will presumably be ready to go into immediate action, and how many will be auxiliary squadrons which from the very nature of things, cannot be immediately operational at anything like full strength?
These questions of course are on the basis of the three-year plan; and the biggest question of all is this: What have we got at the present time? One hon. member this afternoon brought up this point, and said that a great deal of the talk in connection with defence was based upon what we were going to have two years from now or three years from now when this program is completed. He thought there should be more emphasis on what we have at the present time. I think that is extremely true, and that the minister should give us more information of that kind.
I think there is no question that a large number of people in Canada are very much afraid that at the moment we are almost defenceless against an enemy bombing attack, if it should come next week or the week after. These people are very anxious that such a situation will not continue, and particularly that it will not continue for anything like a year or two years longer.
Then, turning to the army, the minister >
said:
To supplement these air defences the army has a large stock of heavy anti-aircraft guns to be manned by active and reserve force personnel.
Leaving aside what is meant by "a large stock", I know we have not the trained personnel to man these guns, in either the

regular or the reserve army. I have heard nothing from the minister as to how the men required are to be raised and trained. The anti-aircraft defences of this city of Ottawa are typical. It is the responsibility of a reserve anti-aircraft regiment, and I doubt very much whether that regiment could turn out a complete troop of four guns; and if it did turn out that troop of four guns, such a troop would be insufficiently trained to put up an effective defence.
Statements of this kind, which I think are meant to be soothing, actually in my opinion are dangerous. It is no use for the minister to say we have a large number of antiaircraft guns if we have not the personnel trained to man those guns-and I think there is no question that we have not.
The next paragraph in the minister's speech, as it appears at the bottom of page 91, says this:
In addition to attack by air, it might be possible for an enemy to land airborne troops by a surprise attack on an, airfield or by parachute. To meet this possibility the Canadian army has a specially-trained airborne brigade group.
I believe the three infantry battalions of this brigade are now fairly well up to strength. What the exact state of their airborne training is, I do not know. I should hope it would be up to scratch also. Certainly, however, the three battalions have not trained together as a brigade. So far as I know there is no headquarters in being, certainly not one which has trained with the three battalions; and therefore it is not quite correct to speak of this as an airborne brigade. It is not trained as such and as a result it could not operate as such. What we have, actually, is three airborne battalions, and certain other airborne troops. As I say, they are not ready to operate together as an airborne brigade and, more important, from their airborne role point of view, we have not the transport aircraft to carry them. And until we have that brigade trained as a brigade, and particularly until we have the transport aircraft which will make them operative in an airborne role, it is quite misleading to talk of them as a well-trained airborne brigade.
The two matters upon which I have just made comment, from the minister's speech, indicate that apparently reassuring facts quoted by the minister may not be so reassuring when more closely examined.
The reserve army is a very important part of the defence of Canada against direct attack. The minister said very little about it in his
Supply-National Defence speech. In fact, I think there is only one sentence which refers to it when, as reported at the top of page 92, he said:
In support of the regular forces and to take action to prevent sabotage are the reserve forces as well as the R.C.M.P. and other police.
Of course in the event of war breaking out, apart from the police, the reserve army would be the chief means of dealing with saboteurs. That would probably keep them fairly well occupied for some considerable time. However, on the shoulders of the reserve army, too, would rest the major portion of the burden of the immediate defence of this country, so far as the army is concerned. And, along with that, as a third role it must undertake, is the provision of the framework for mobilization.
The question is:	Is the reserve army
strong enough to carry out these tasks? The minister during the past three years has given us optimistic reports on recruiting and training in the reserves, and has tried to give the impression that all was well in. that regard. The report of the conference of defence associations held in the early part of January in this year effectively disposed of all such arguments and stories on the part of the minister. I should like to quote a few excerpts from that to indicate what the men who command the reserve forces, who run the reserve forces, think of their effectiveness. I quote:
The delegates to the conference of defence associations are all civilians, representing a cross section of Canadians from every part of the country. They, and the men they represent, are in large measure responsible for the effectiveness and efficiency of the reserve force. It is to the reserve force that Canada must look for the creation of a national army in time of war.
Year after year, by formal resolution, the conference has brought to the attention of higher authority the need for some action, if the reserve force is to function as it should, and meet the expectations of the Canadian people that the money spent upon it will produce results when the need arises.
And again:
Large sums have been spent on advertising and in other ways to induce men to join the reserve force. To a large extent, such moneys have been wasted. The men have not been and are not coming forward.
The men represented through the conference have exhausted every effort to improve these conditions and have sacrificed time and their own money in such efforts.
The delegates to the conference feel that, since the effectiveness and efficiency of the reserve forces is largely their responsibility, and that of the men they represent, they would be derelict in their duty to the government and to their fellow countrymen if they did not put before that government and the people of Canada their views as to the present state of the reserve force.
It is obvious that the vastly increased expenditure on military matters now contemplated will call for

Supply-National Defence sharply increased' taxes to be paid by Canadians. We feel Canadians are prepared to pay such taxes in view of the issues involved but we do not feel1 that Canadians are prepared to see moneys wasted. It is our considered and unanimous opinion that proper value is not being received for much of the public moneys now being spent on the reserve force.
In spite of the existing shortages of facilities for the reserve force, in many places the strength of units does not absorb present facilities for training by a substantial margin. Far more men could be trained in the reserve force than are presently coming forward.
The turnover of other ranks is such that the vast majority of men who appear from tune to time on the nominal rolls of reserve force units receive no training worthy of the name. They do not stay with the unit long enough. To say that the reserve force is 40,000 strong, and to give the Canadian people the idea that it has 40,000 men who could quickly be ready for action, is a travesty of the facts. There are few, if any, reserve units in Canada that could be ready to function in action under a minimum period of six months. This includes AA and other such units which should be ready for immediate action. The Canadian public, in spite of the moneys spent, cannot look to effective and efficient protection from internal sabotage or external aggression from its reserve force for a considerable period after war breaks out, and the active force is far too small to undertake the full burden of such duties.
I think that is fairly conclusive as to what the situation in the reserve force has been. Since that report was made some three or four months ago there has been no material change in the situation. The question then arises: What does the minister propose to do to make our reserve army efficient and effective? The trouble does not lie with the men in the reserve. They devote a good deal of time and effort to the defence of this country, time that might otherwise be spent in leisurely pursuits. Their devotion to duty deserves the highest praise and I know they have made the greatest possible efforts to make their units efficient and effective.
The trouble is that they have not been able to get the necessary men with whom to build units. The average young man in Canada has not felt that there is any real need for him in the reserve. This lack of any sense of urgency is the responsibility of this government. At any rate, until quite recently, the government itself has shown no sense of urgency whatever in defence matters. On the contrary, we have had soothing assurances of the adequacy of our defence measures. We have had an attitude of no war in our time and business as usual.
I think that attitude has passed away to some extent and considerably more urgency is being shown by the government at the moment than was the case previously. However, it has not so far carried over to the general public from anything that I can see. The government needs to adopt much more

strenuous measures than it has so far in order to get this over to the young men of this country.
The necessity of a strong reserve and the reliance on it to raise men for the regular forces was indicated quite clearly by the minister's announcement of Friday last that the brigade for Europe is to be raised from the reserve units. In my opinion that is probably the only way in Which it could be raised rapidly by voluntary methods. However, what does not seem to be realized and what has not been indicated by anything the minister has said is that this move will weaken the reserve and weaken it quite considerably toy draining away a large number of the most active and enthusiastic officers and men.
The regular army and1 the special brigade for Korea have already done a certain amount of draining away. If, as seems likely, a large proportion of the 27th brigade now being raised comes from the reserve units which have the responsibility for raising companies in that brigade, it will mean that those units will be much weaker than they were before, and we all know they were weak to begin with. This will be a very serious blow to the reserve army from which it will take considerable time to recover.
The reserve army -has been weakened further in some cases by the withdrawing of equipment. I do not know what has been done with that equipment, but probably some went to the regular force units and probably some was sent to Europe. I should like the minister to indicate when that withdrawn equipment will be replaced.
There has been a considerable amount of talk today with regard to standardization, and during the past year or more we have had a number of .statements in regard to this. The hope has been expressed on many occasions that all the North Atlantic treaty nations would adopt the same weapons and we would have a standardization of arms for that entire confederacy. I think that has now become what might be called merely a pious hope and there is no real expectation that a North Atlantic treaty standardization of weapons will take place. There certainly has been little progress, if any, in that regard.
The Canadian government has decided to adopt the United States type of weapons. At this point I am not going to go into the wisdom or unwisdom of that course. The thing is that because of that policy the British type equipment we have is being disposed of. Equipment for two divisions has been sent already to Holland and Belgium

and I believe equipment lor a third division is on the way to Italy, or will shortly be going there. We have had no information in this house, nor has the country had any information as far as I know, that this equipment has been replaced with United States style weapons.
The situation seems to be that we are in a much worse position now as far as weapons for the army are concerned than we were a year ago. A further pertinent question that the minister should answer is: What is the equipment that has been disposed of to be replaced with, and when is that replacement to be made? We cannot be left in a situation where we have got rid of the major portion of our army equipment and have not received or made anything to replace it. As an example of what has happened, our anti-tank units have had their self-propelled guns taken away from them, and so far as I know they have had nothing to replace them. Perhaps they have been given a drawn gun of some sort with which to carry on a little gun drill. They should be told immediately what they will get to replace the self-propelled equipment they have lost and when they will get it. Without their own weapons with which to train, the interest and morale of such units is naturally going to suffer. It is bound to decline.
While standardization of Canadian arms with those of the United States has been decided upon, again very little has been done towards producing such arms in Canada. I was shocked to learn in the public accounts committee that the only standard1 weapon being produced in Canada so far is the 3-inch naval gun. So far as I have been able to determine no tooling up has been done for the production of other American type weapons in this country. The minister has made no statement as to how much United States equipment we have bought, if any. It is a very serious situation for us to be in to have got rid of more than half of our army equipment without anything to replace it, if indeed that is the situation, as I fear it is.
There is another phase of this matter on which I should like to comment briefly. Some of the United States equipment is not as good as the British type we have had. A case in point, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Nanaimo this afternoon, is the Bren gun. So far as I can learn, it is a much more effective and flexible weapon than its nearest American counterpart. I understand that the Bren gun can be modified to use -30 American type ammunition, and I should think it would be wise for us to adopt that course. It would be wise both from the point of view of efficiency and from the point of 80709-181
Supply-National Defence view of economy to convert our Bren guns to American type ammunition rather than scrap them.
The same question arises with respect to field artillery weapons. My experience during the last war was that the 25 pounder was a much better weapon than its counterpart, the United States 105. I do not know whether it would be satisfactory to modify our 25 pounders to use 105 ammunition, but in any event it seems to be the reverse of progress to be getting rid of superior weapons and replacing them with inferior ones. It is one of the phases of defence rearmament on which I think we should have some information.
The cost of our rearmament effort is also a very important consideration. In his speech in New York on March 30 the minister emphasized the matter of economy. At that time he said:
We must decrease the unit cost of defence equipment. Unless you actually see it, it is hard to imagine how defence costs have soared.
He went on to say that this was partly due to the increase in prices and partly due to the extreme complexity of much of our modern equipment. He quoted prices as of February 5. He gave the cost of a radar station, the cost of a jet aircraft, and so on. The minister went on to point out that the attempt to secure perfection militates against producing the merely good. He made other remarks along that line. As a matter of fact I think that has been one of the greatest weaknesses and difficulties in producing large amounts of equipment and getting comparatively large forces together either rapidly or cheaply. I think we have always paid a great deal of attention to the matter of trying to produce what we think are extremely superior weapons, and as a result have not produced those weapons in quantity rapidly. There are many examples of that. Russian artillery compared with our own and that of the United States is a case in point. I believe it is produced for about a quarter of the cost or less. It is lighter and more mobile and is only slightly less accurate.
The Thompson sub-machine gun and the Sten gun, both of which were used by our forces in the last war, are another example.
I do not know what the figures are, but the Sten gun would certainly cost very much less than the Thompson sub-machine gun, probably a quarter as much. It was not nearly as nice looking a weapon. People did not like carrying it around, but when it came to a fight the difference between them so far as effectiveness was concerned was negligible. I certainly think that a great deal of time can be saved in re-equipping our

Supply-National Defence forces by equipping them with weapons such as those of which I have given examples rather than attempting at a very slow rate to turn out something which may be very slightly better, and may in some cases not even be better at all.
Somewhat the same thing applies with respect to the amount of equipment with which troops are supplied that they are forced to carry, and so forth. There have been a considerable number of accounts in United States magazines and newspapers of late iponths concerning how the efficiency of their forces was actually cut down by too much and too heavy equipment as a result of which lives were lost which should not have been lost. Along with that, it was pointed out that there are far too many men in service units of all kinds compared with the number actually fighting. The same thing applies to our own army and other forces.
I have spoken on this general line many times in the house in the past with respect to our own forces. One of my chief criticisms during the past three years has been that our set-up is top-heavy, that the great majority of our personnel were in headquarters and performing administrative jobs, and very few were in fighting units. During the last few months the percentage of people in administrative jobs compared with the percentage in fighting units has of course decreased considerably because of the formation of the special brigade in Korea, and now because of the formation of the new brigade for European service, and also because of recruitment up to strength of the units in our airborne brigade.
The same thing applies to the air force and the navy. However, I think we still have too 'tnany men at headquarters and in administrative jobs. I think we are still much more top-heavy than we should be. At the last session the minister said that efforts were constantly being made to improve this situation. I should like him to tell us what has been done. It is no use for him to quote to us what the percentage of improvement has been. I should like to have some definite information as to how many men have been transferred from administrative jobs to fighting units, and things of that sort. As a matter of fact I have seen some evidence that the situation is worse. I do not mean from a percentage point of view, but there are more people in administrative jobs at headquarters than there were before, and that number is increasing all the time. That impression may be incorrect, but it is certainly true in some places. While I am on the subject of the cost of defence, we know that during the past four years we have voted large sums in this

house for defence, and a very greatly increased amount is being asked for in this year's estimates. At no time has there been any reluctance to provide the money asked for; nor will there be on this occasion, either in this house or, I think, on the part of the people as a whole. There has been, however, and there is very great concern that the money so voted should be well spent, and that value in fighting ability should be obtained for it.
Past experience in this regard has not been good. In the past three years we have not had very much in the way of fighting units in return for the large amounts that have been spent. Part of our job as members of parliament is to see that the money voted is well spent and that efficient and effective fighting forces are produced. We cannot do that sitting in committee of supply as we are at the moment. I think the only way we can do it at all reasonably is by means of a committee on defence. We have asked for such a committee every session during the past several years, and every session the minister has produced a number of what I would call excuses as to why such a committee should not be set up. I think there is no question but that this is the only way a real scrutiny of defence estimates and expenditures can be made by this House of Commons, and I would again urge the minister to set up such a committee.
Manpower still remains the basic problem in our defence effort. The scheme announced by the minister the other day for raising a brigade for service in Europe is more likely to obtain the number of men needed than any other method which could be devised under the voluntary system. If it does not provide the men needed rapidly, then I think we must face the fact that voluntary recruiting has failed. I sincerely hope the number of men required is raised, and I should hope that would be done within two weeks. In any event I am quite sure all Canadians will wait with great interest to see the results of that scheme.
I should like to offer a few more comments in connection with that matter. I have gone over the list of units each of which is to raise a company, battery, squadron or other sub-unit, and I am puzzled by an analysis of this list. The fifteen infantry battalions to raise a company each are perfectly logical. As the minister said this afternoon, that will give us three battalions of five companies each. However, there are six artillery regiments listed, each to raise a battery. That, of course, would give two regiments of artillery. A brigade group only calls for one regiment of artillery, and I wonder if the

minister will tell us what the second regiment that would be provided is to be used for. Most surprising of all, however, is the ten armoured regiments listed. Does this mean it is intended to raise two or three armoured regiments, or what does it mean? It is not even clear whether the brigade group will have an armoured regiment, though the numbers would seem to indicate not. Therefore just reading over the list it is rather hard to understand just why each of the ten armoured regiments is being called upon to produce a unit or sub-unit for this force.
In the minister's speech of February 5 he said the general defence plan for Canada called for the equivalent of one division in the army. Later announcements seemed to add up to considerably more. We will have one brigade group in Korea and one in Europe, with the airborne brigade at home. It has been announced that the overseas brigades are to be rotated with ones from Canada, which would indicate that we would require at least one more brigade unless the airborne brigade is to be used for this rotation job, which would be directly contrary to all statements of policy that have been made in connection with the employment of that brigade. In addition we need the equivalent of another brigade to provide reinforcements for the troops fighting in Korea. The provision of these reinforcements must have first priority in the allocation of army manpower. At one time there was some talk that the third battalions of the regular infantry regiments, which according to the newspapers today are now on their way to Wainwright from Fort Lewis, would be used as the basis of the brigade for Europe. I am very glad that idea has been given up, if it was ever entertained. I sincerely trust that these third battalions will be brought up to strength and kept as reinforcements for our brigade in Korea. The normal wastage there, apart from battle casualties, is likely to be high; and of course we never know what the battle casualties will be.
The number of men to be raised under the scheme just announced, if it is successful, will amount to 250 per company. That will give us quite a few more men than will be required for the European brigade. A normal infantry rifle company is just a little more than half that number. So if the scheme is completely successful it will mean that we will raise nearly twice as many men as will be required for the brigade group in Europe.
I would like the minister to tell us what it is proposed to do with these men. Are they to go into a general reinforcement pool for the whole army? Are they to be held as 80709-1814
Supply-National Defence reinforcements for the European brigade? Or are they really to form the major part of another brigade group for rotation purposes? Certainly in view of the greater number of men involved it is now apparent that the target of 115,000 men for the forces, which was laid down in connection with this program, must be increased. It struck me from the beginning that 115,000 men in the forces was much too small a number for the jobs envisaged for those forces. I think the number should have been at least 150,000 in order to do those jobs effectively. I do not believe the program could be carried on with fewer than that. So I say there seems to be no doubt that the number required under the program, if the minister can get them, will be much more than 115,000, because of the large increase already shown in the army.
The whole question of manpower was mentioned this afternoon in connection with the manpower council. When that council was set up at the beginning of this session many of us expressed the hope that it would be used to make a survey of our manpower resources. It has not met since the initial meeting, and apparently has done nothing along that line. A survey such as it could make would be valuable. However, I think it would1 be insufficient for our needs in allocating men and women for the services, for industry and so on. I think we need a scheme of national registration in this country immediately. At the beginning of this session, about three months ago, I urged that such a step be taken and the need is just that much more urgent now. Three months have been lost during which that registration could have been conducted.
I believe one of the chief difficulties as far as our defence effort is concerned has been the absence of any sense of urgency on the part of the government in regard to defence preparations or any other matters. They seem to feel no urgency in regard to the matter of inflation, any more than they have shown any feeling of urgency as far as defence matters are concerned. As a result of the fact that the government has shown no sense of urgency, no sense of emergency, the general public has been lulled into a false sense of security. I do not think there is any question but that you cannot have a rearmament effort, you cannot have a war effort or a semi-war effort, without a spirit of willingness to meet it on the part of your people. The only action on the part of any members of the government I have ever seen to arouse such a spirit was this action on the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to which reference is made in tonight's Journal. I should like to commend
2842	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence him for trying to put some pep into this thing, for trying to arouse some spirit in the people of this country. It quotes the minister as saying we should whip up fury against the Soviet threat.


Mr. Martin:: I should like to point out to the hon. member that I have not read the full dispatch, but it has been called to my attention. I would say it is a good example of a sentence being removed from its context.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is quite a bit of the minister's speech quoted, and here is the last part:
Mr. Martin repeatedly underlined with heavy emphasis the need for "fighting spirit" in contrast to "defence mindedness."
"Canadians must be encouraged to whip up their fighting spirit. All our preparations must give top priority to requirements of our army, navy and air force."


Brooke Claxton: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, hear, hear. I quote this, as I have already indicated, for the purpose of commending the minister as the first one in the government who has made any real attempt so far as I know to stir up any fighting spirit in this country, to give any sense of urgency to our defence preparations or any real encouragement to the young men of this country to believe they are needed in our defence forces.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear the previous speaker speak so highly of the reserve forces. In my opinion he correctly emphasized the neglect of this force as a potential defence force. I feel that they are neglected and discouraged as civilian soldiers. They lack funds. I happen to have served with them during the last war, and I found that funds were lacking to an extent that the officers always chipped in their pay in order to buy equipment, some comforts and entertainment for the troops. The reserve forces also lack social life because of this lack of funds. I find these troops are usually cramped in old barracks or old drill halls that have not been altered for many years. I believe that is because they are not taken seriously by the Department of National Defence, but are merely treated as a reserve police force.
I mention this because one of the units that has been selected to form the 27th brigade is the unit with which I served during the war, the British Columbia Dragoons. This regiment served overseas with distinction in the last war. I am not going to dwell on this subject at any length, but the regiment has been housed in an old school building transformed to serve as a drill hall. Seven years ago the promise was made that new


plans would be drawn, and the plans were actually drawn, to enlarge the hall to accommodate the modern unit that now occupies it. So far nothing has been done. The lands are available, and the plans are available. I presume out of the $5 billion money could be made available. If this unit is to be properly housed that hall should be enlarged, and modern equipment installed such as toilets, bathrooms and so on. In my opinion it is only fair to give these things to the troops that you expect to volunteer in a hurry. I know they will, and you will get your quota out there. Then, the government should do its share by providing proper quarters for training.
Most of the officers who will be called for service with this new brigade will come from reserve units. The officers in reserve units are usually men employed in the ordinary vocations in the town, in stores, offices and so on. They are promoted from the ranks. On their behalf I would ask the government to pay all the costs of the clothing that officers have to buy on entering active service, or upon being given a commission in the reserve army. Either the clothing should be given to them or an adequate amount of money allowed so that they could buy clothing wherever they wished.
I believe the government should reassure these men, particularly the rank and file, that proper care will be taken of them when their service is completed. Today a lot of men question this fact, and they question it when they read such statements in the press as appeared in the Globe and Mail about a week ago. The article is headed "Korea Veterans Seek Own Route to Civvy Street." It reads:
Korean brigade soldiers discharged this week found that the federal government had made no effort to pave their road back to civvy street.
D.V.A. officials said representations have been made to Ottawa for assistance to the veterans, but no re-establishment action has been authorized. There were no re-establishment credits, educational grants, Veterans Land Act, discharge leave or clothing allowances for men discharged from the UN force. Only unemployment insurance benefits are available and these only to men with over nine months' service-which few men of the brigade can yet claim.
A few medical discharge cases now being "processed out" get their pay, but nothing more.
"If a man declares himself destitute he may get a $30 voucher to obtain clothing, but this is supposed to be deducted from the army pay owing to him," an army spokesman said today.
I am not going to mention that further, but I would say to the minister that if he expects to recruit the full number of men for the armed services, then those men must be given the assurance that they will receive

proper, just and fair treatment on being returned to civilian occupations afterwards.
I am going to deal briefly-I hope to pass on a suggestion or two to the minister-with my own province. I believe the Pacific coast has grown in importance, especially in the event of a possible war. I believe the minister should take certain steps to remove bottlenecks which prevent the free flow of traffic east and west. We in British Columbia are fully conscious of these bottlenecks, but have become so accustomed to them that possibly we do not object. The first problem is the immediate completion of the trans-Canada highway. I believe this has been a long standing need, and the speed with which it is being completed is far from satisfactory. For the sake of civil defence and the needs of war, the minister should see that the trans-Canada highway from Alberta to British Columbia is completed at a very early date.
The other bottleneck which I have always felt should be removed, not only for the war effort but for peacetime as well, is the railway track running on each side of the Fraser river from Kamloops to Vancouver. On one side you have the Canadian National, and on the other side about one hundred or two hundred feet away is the Canadian Pacific. They both run on single lines because there is not the width to allow for double tracks. Any time there is a meet they have to wait, sometimes for hours, to be overtaken on a siding, and there are not many sidings along that route. The result is that both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway suffer a severe bottleneck by way of slow transportation; whether it is wheat, troops or passengers, it does not matter. My suggestion would be that these two railways get together, either with the aid of the government in some way or at the insistence of the government, and make the Canadian National a one-route railway going east and the Canadian Pacific Railway a one-route railway going west from Kamloops to Vancouver. In that way traffic would be speeded up and long waits for shunting at sidings would be avoided. The value of the railway as a transportation system, between Kamloops and Vancouver, would probably be doubled. I merely pass that idea long.
Another bottleneck that we have, possibly by the very nature of our country, is that with respect to airports. We have possibly two dozen airports in the interior of British Columbia, an area several times larger than the British isles which has as many hundred airfields. We in the interior are independent and some years ago we started building our own airfields; but owing to lack of funds, we were not able to build fields that could be of
Supply-National Defence use during war. We have, however, retained sufficient land so that the present fields could be extended to be of value in case of war. I could mention such places as Grand Forks, Kelowna, Vernon, and Kamloops. They are prepared to extend their airports in order to accommodate military planes.
As to Grand Forks, on their behalf I have already offered the government the full use, by lease, gift or in any other way, of their excellent port. All it needs is a slight extension to make it of first-class strategic importance, as it is close to Trail. Failing the government's taking active steps to do this, I am satisfied that the municipalities concerned are willing to co-operate and that, given a little bit of assistance, they would carry out the work themselves.
To my mind, these ports are important in the interior. They are safe from attack. They are not as vulnerable to enemy bombing and so on as they would be if they were actually on the Pacific coast. I feel that the government should investigate the possibility of having jet planes in the interior; because by jet planes particularly it is only about twenty-five minutes from Vancouver or maybe thirty-five minutes from Victoria. They would be quite safe in the interior in contrast with the danger they would be in from bombing at the coast.
The subject of my talk tonight was not to be that, but I became a bit sidetracked. My intention had been to speak for a short time on civil defence. I believe this subject is neglected too much by those who speak in the House of Commons, by the government and by the municipalities throughout the country. I believe that the public today are confused for want of instruction and authentic information. If you doubt this statement, I would ask you to just go outside in this or any other town and quite casually ask the first civilian you meet:	What would you do in
the event of enemy planes being reported coming in this direction? Just ask that question of any man or woman in Ottawa or in any other town, and you would be astounded at the blank look which you would receive. They have no answer. They are relying on some government or on some authority to be doing the thinking on their behalf.
We have been told that there are instruction schools and committees functioning, and that they have been set up in various parts of Canada. But the fact remains that the average Canadian has not the vaguest idea of what he should do in case of attack, where he should go or what part he should
2844	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence play in that case. The chances are that the people would scatter like frightened rabbits, seeking the deepest burrow.
One can imagine the confusion of the uninstructed population, faced with a disaster of that kind. We who saw active service remember quite well the terror that demoralized the people, especially the children, in Belgium and France, when the enemy advanced; the thousands who trudged weary miles along roads, going nowhere in particular, sleeping where they could under a hedgerow or maybe in a ditch for better protection. This happened to people in Europe who had first-hand knowledge of previous wars and who had been taught to expect such things. What would happen to our people? What would be the fate of Canadians, lacking instruction, lacking experience and lacking leadership, in towns like Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver? There is only one name for it: complete chaos; and complete chaos will be the result unless we take that leadership in giving these people direction immediately and now. It must be done immediately, because the article that I have already read by the Minister of National Health and Welfare would indicate that this danger is serious and urgent. If we have any pep or any fight, do not let us concentrate it all in Korea. Let us use some of it at home and see that we take adequate steps to protect our people.
I understand that General Worthington is doing his best to arouse public opinion; but instead of touring the country from coast to coast I believe that he would be better employed if he were properly established here in Ottawa, with a competent staff to take care of the provincial organization and

to give proper direction. You cannot do that when you wander around the country giving speeches at Rotary clubs and so on. This thing is urgent. It is as necessary to have him here with a proper staff as it is to have a general staff for the army. I should like to quote what General Worthington had to say on May 5, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of May 7:
Major Gen. F. F. Worthington, C.B., M.C., M.M., federal co-ordinator of civil defence, Saturday urged every man and woman in Canada to accept their responsibilities as part of a countrywide civilian force organized to play their part in the event of invasion.
Speaking at V-E day ceremonies at Aylmer on Saturday afternoon, the general said there was no place on this continent which was not subject to invasion. In a future war America would not be protected1 by the barriers of two oceans and an Arctic icecap.
"Today the front line is your own front yard," he said. He warned that the method of warfare now was to smash at the civil population in order to disrupt the home front and the productive capacity of a nation.
Gen. Worthington said the civilian population would need to be trained to know what to do in the event of invasion to minimize the effect on morale and production.
And he went on to ask the branches of the Canadian Legion to take part in this particular work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Brooke Claxton: Tomorrow we shall proceed with this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 9, 1951